MICROFILMED  1991 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


Ci 


as  part  of  the 
Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITffiS 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  ~  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


.isH**  V 


r 
<. 


f 


t-^ 


*>»»>, .  ^ 


LL  DANIEL 


TITLE: 


TO  THE 

FRS  OF  THE 


PLACE: 


LO 


m 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIIiS 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROrORM  TAR G ET 


Master  Negative  // 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


93G.^^O'GonT-.^ll,  Dsni^L   ai5-^6^^ 

^  ^  Le.He.r    :o    Vne.    merno^rs    or    -l-he 


House.  oP   comrnons...  on    fne.    Itoal    rioh^    of 
"Rorns^n     cafnoiicS)     ^o    si+     in    PsrUrne-nV... 
London  ^fc^a  0.       3'"Ja 

i'  No.    J     ofa  vofuinc  ofpamphlctfl. 


FILM     SIZE: 


ST/ 


/^ 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


REDUCTION     RATIO:  I  /k 

IMAgE  PLACEMENT:    lA  ^11^    ID     IIB  

DAfE     FILMED: ^^Jjj"?/  _     INITIALS      K^'^ 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUDLICATIONS.  INC  WOODURIDGE.  CT 


\z 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12         3        4         5 

UlUMiuliluulUi^ 


UN 


6 

iiliiii 


7        8 

iiiliiiiliiiilii 


9       10       11 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 


12       13       14       15    mm 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


rr-rry 


Inches 


T 


rrr 


T 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


1^ 

2.8 

2.5 

1^ 

32 

2.2 

■  63 

an 

36 

vs.    1 

4.0 

2.0 

Ui 

•-    u 

kibu 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

TTT 


MPNUFfiCTURED  TO  flllM  STRNDPRDS 
BY  APPLIED  IMRGE,  INC. 


\ 


r/ 


LETTER 


TO 


THE  MEMBERS 


OF    THE 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS 


OP    THE 


UNITED  PARLIAMENT  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND, 

*C.  ^C.  i'C. 


5*'- 


M 


i  • 

1\)  0.3. 


A  LETTER 


TO 


THE  MEMBERS 


OP  raz 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS 


V 


op  THB 


a 


UNITED  PARLIAMENT  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND, 


bUNNKLL   AND    SHKARUAlt,    KALISBfRY    »QVAR] 


y 


ON  THE  LEGAL  RIGHT  OF 


JXoman  Cfatfiolicg  to  ^it  in  mxMtmtnt ; 


TO    WHICH    IS    ADDED 


A  REPLY 


TO 


EDWARD    BURTENSHAW  SUGDEN,   Esq., 

ONE   OF    HIS   majesty's    COUNSEL,  &C.  &C.  &C. 


BY 


DAiNlEL   O^CONNELL,   ESQ.,   M.P. 


LONDON: 
JAMES  RIDGWAY,  1C9,  PICCADILLY 


MDCCCXXIX. 


.\ 


V\. 


LETTERS, 


"  Quid  enim  ultra  fieri  ad  placandos  Deos,  mitigandosque  homines,  potuit,  quam 
quod  tios  feciinus  ?  Qui  finis  erit  discordiarum  ?  Ecquando  uuam  urbem  habere, 
ecquando  cvmmunem  hanc  esse  patriam,  licebit  ?  victi  nos  aequiore  animo  quiescimus 
quam  vos  victores." — Liv. 


Merrion  Square^  Dublin^  Feb.  2,  1829. 

Gentlemen, — It  vvillbe  readily  admitted  that  the  question 
upon  my  right  to  take  my  seat  and  exercise  all  the  duties  of 
a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons  is  one  of  great  impor- 
tance to  the  people  of  these  countries. 

If  the  decision  shall  be,  as  I  am  satisfied  it  ought  to  be,  in 
favour  of  that  right,  it  will  tend  to  tranquillize  Ireland  and 
strengthen  Great  Britain.  If  it  shall  happen  that  I  am  un- 
justly and  illegally  deprived  of  that  right,  the  consequences 
cannot  but  be  pernicious,  and  may  be  most  disastrous. 

1  am  a  lawyer  of  thirty  years'  standing.  Experience 
alone  ought  to  have  taught  me  something  of  the  law;  and 
here  I  deliberately  assert  my  most  sincere  conviction  of  my 
right  to  sit,  speak,  and  vote  in  Parliament,  without  taking 
any  oath  inconsistent  with  the  Catholic  religion.  I  think  I 
shall  convince  every  lawyer  in  the  country,  who  is  not 
biassed  by  political  or  other  motives,  that  my  right  to  sit, 
speak,  and  vote  in  the  House  of  Commons,  is  perfectly  clear 
and  incontrovertible,' 

1  trust,  too,  I  shall  be  able  to  carry  the  same  conviction 
home  to  the  minds  of  every  one  of  you;  but  as  very  many 
of  you  are  not  lawyers,  I  will  use  as  little  technical  language 
as  possible,  and  divide  the  subject  into  separate  and  dis- 
tinct propositions,  in  order  to  avoid  confusion  or  intricacy. 

B 


My  first  proposition  is,  that  it  is  a  maxim  both  of  constitu- 
tional and  judicial  law,  "  that  penal  and  restrictive  statutes 
are  to  be  construed  strictly,  and  not  to  be  extended  by  im- 
plication beyond  the  words  thereof." 

This  is  a  universal  rule,  founded  on  plain  common  sense. 
The  law  would  create  a  miserable  servitude  if  it  were  other- 
wise. Men  should  have  distinct  and  accurate  information 
of  that  which  the  law  constitutes  an  otfence,  or  defines  to  be 
a  crime ;  and  men  should  also  have  distinct  and  accurate 
information  given  by  the  law  itself,  and  not  by  any  inter- 
preter, of  the  nature,  quantity,  and  quality  of  the  punish- 
ment or  penalty  to  be  incurred  by  the  commission  of  such 
ofl'ence  or  crime. 

This  principle  of  common  sense  has  been  fully  and  un- 
equivocally adopted  by  the  British  law.  Our  Judges,  in 
one  thousand  instances  on  record,  have  not  only  asserted 
the  principle  that  penal  and  restrictive  laws  are  to  be  con- 
strued most  strictly,  and  not  to  be  extended  by  implica- 
tion, but  have  boasted  of  the  adoption  of  this  principle,  as 
one  decisive  evidence  of  the  perfect  conformity  of  British 
law  with  common  sense  and  natural  justice. 

I  am  tempted  by  my  forensic  habits  to  cite  authorities, 
and  to  refer  to  the  dicta  of  great  and  eminent  Judges,  as 
proofs  of  the  extent  to  which  this  principle  has  been  adopt- 
ed, asserted,  and  lauded  by  our  Judges  in  every  century, 
modern  as  well  as  remote.  But  1  refrain.  I  am  address- 
ino-  men  who  are  not  professional  lawyers;  and  it  is  enough 
for  them  to  know,  that  this  maxim  of  common  sense  is  also 
a  maxim  of  common  law,  that  penal  or  restrictive  statutes 
are  to  be  construed  strictly. 

It  was  declared  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VL,  "  that  there 
is  a  principle  in  the  common  law,  that  penal  statutes  should 
be  taken  strictly,  and  shall  not  be  extended  by  equity  to 
the  prejudice  of  them  upon  whom  the  penalty  is  inflicted." 

You  can,  therefore,  easily  comprehend  that  no  tribunal, 
nor  any  authority  whatsoever — save  the  Legislature — can 
add"  words"  to  complete  a  supposed  or  implied  intention 
of  the  Legislature  in  a  penal  statute. 

That  would  be  to  legislate,  not  to  expound ;  that  would 


/ 


be  to  place  the  judicial  over  the  legislative  povrer,  and  in 
a  penal  matter  too. 

The  law  is  particularly  strict  on  this  subject,  as  indeed  it 

ought  to  be. 

It  is  so  strict,  that  even  when  the  Legislature  in  a  penal 
statute  uses  words  of  a  doubtful  nature,  the  Judges  have 
laid  it  down  as  a  rule,  "that  doubtful  words  shall  never  be 
construed  to  the  prejudice  of  a  supposed  offender." 

Perhaps  I  shall  be  deemed  improperly  prolix  on  this  in- 
troductory part  of  my  case  ;  but  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
that  this  rule  and  maxim  of  the  law  should  be  distinctly  un- 
derstood— "  that  penal  laws  are  to  be  construed  strictly,  and 
are  never  to  be  extended  by  implication."  It  is  so  impor- 
tant that  this  matter  of  law  should  be  understood,  that  1  am 
induced  to  mention  another  rule  laid  down  by  the  Judges, 
as  resulting  from  the  maxim  of  construing  penal  statutes 
strictly :  it  is  this—"  That  affirmative  words  in  an  Act  of 
Parliament  never  take  away  a  common  law  right." 

This  rule  may  be  quoted  in  many  ancient  authorities,  and 
IS  not  inaptly  illustrated  by  what  Lord  Eldon,  presiding  in 
the  House  of  Lords,  is  reported  to  have  said  in  the  case  of 
the  corporation  of  Galway. 

An  Irish  Act  of  Parliament  had  enacted  that  "the  free- 
men of  Galway  should  reside  in  that  town."  Persons,  not 
resident,  have  claimed  the  rights  of  freemen  of  Galway. 
The  question  on  this  point  was,  whether  constant  and  un- 
doubted non-residence  disentitled  them  to  claim  these 
rights  ? 

Lord  Eldon  is  reported  to  have  declared  that  it  did  not ; 
that  the  statute  was  merely  affirmative,  directing  the  free- 
men to  reside  in  the  town,  and  only  implying  that  none 
should  be  freemen  but  those  who  so  resided.  However, 
such  implication  could  not  be  allowed  to  destroy  the  rights 
of  the  non-residents.  It  was  a  penal  statute,  and  therefore 
would  have  required  negative  words  to  take  away  the  sub- 
ject's rights. 

This  law,  reported  to  have  been  laid  down  by  Lord 
Eldon,  will  be  admitted  by  every  well-informed  lawyer  to 

be  perfectly  ace  urates 

b2 


To  deprive  the  subjects  otherwise  entitled  to  the  freedom 
of  the  corporation  of  Galway  of  that  right,  it  would  have 
been  absolutely  necessary  that  the  statute  should  have  con- 
tained not  only  an  enactment  "that  all  freemen  should 
reside  in  Galway,"  but  it  should  have  added,  "that  no 
persons  who  did  not  reside  in  Galway  should  enjoy  the 
rights  of  freemen  of  that  town." 

I  now  beg  of  you,  in  considering  the  case  I  shall  lay 
before  you  on  my  own  behalf,  io  carry  in  your  minds  these 

truths — 

1.  That  penal  and  restrictive  statutes  are  to  be  construed 

strictly, 

2.  That  penal  and  restrictive  statutes  cannot  be  extended 

bv  construction  or  implication. 

'  3.  That  no  tribunal  can  add  "  words"  to  any  penal  or  re- 
strictive statute. 

4.  That  the  doubtful  words  of  a  penal  or  restrictive  sta- 
tute are  to  be  construed  in  favour  of  the  supposed  offender. 

5.  That  affirmative  words  in  an  Act  of  Parliament  do  not 
take  away  a  common  law  right. 

And,  6,  That  the  right  of  the  elected  representative  of  a 
county  to  sit  and  vote  in  Parliament  is  a  common  law  right 
of  the  highest  nature. 

These  are  truisms  familiar  to  those  whose  profession  has 
initiated  them  in  legal  details;  and  I  state  them  only  be- 
cause this  letter  is  addressed  to  gentlemen  whose  habits  and 
pursuits  render  it  necessary  to  rouse  their  attention  to  the 
principles  which  ought  to  govern  any  legal  decision  in  my 

case. 

If  these  principles  are  kept  steadily  in  view,  my  case  wdl 
be  found  to  be  one  which  cannot  create  any  doubt  or  diffi- 
culty. 

I  now  proceed  to  consider  the  present  state  of  the  statute 
law  relative  to  the  oaths  necessary  to  be  taken  by  members 
of  the  House  of  Commons.  You  will  recollect  that  1  assert 
my  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  that  House,  without  taking  any 
oaths  inconsistent  with  the  Catholic  religion. 

I  shall  say  nothing  with  respect  to  the  oaths  of  allegiance 
and  at)ji;ration.     I  have  taken  both  those  oaths  fioquently. 


A 


I  am  ready  to  take  them  as  often  as  any  justifiable  occasion 
requires  me  to  swear.  No  man  is  more  ready  than  1  am  to 
pay  due  allegiance  to  the  Sovereign,  or  to  maintain  the 
title  of  his  family  to  the  throne  of  this  realm.  No  man 
more  thoroughly  abjures,  than  1  do,  any  foreign  Prince, 
Potentate,  Pope,  or  Prelate,  in  all  temporal  or  civil  affairs. 

The  oaths  of  allegiance  and  abjuration  being  thus  out  of 
the  question,  I  proceed  to  my  second  proposition.  It  is 
this: — 

"  That  I  am  entitled  to  go  into  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  to  take  mv  seat  without  taking  any  oaths  inconsistent 
with  the  Catholic  religfion,  out  of  the  House  itself." 

It  has  been  asserted,  and  repeated  in  print,  that  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and  supremacy  in 
the  Lord  Steward's  office,  previous  to  entering  the  House 
of  Commons.  I  deny  that  any  such  obligation  exists :  it  is 
quite  true  that  it  did  exist,  but  it  exists  no  longer. 

The  oblifration  to  take  these  oaths  was  created  bv  the 
stat.  5th  Elizabeth,  cap.  1,  sec.  16,  and  7th  James  I., 
cap.  C,  sec.  8.  But  mark,  besides  other  objections,  both 
those  statutes,  as  far  as  they  relate  to  oaths  of  allegiance 
and  supremacy,  are  repealed  by  the  express  words  of  the 
statute  1st  William  and  Mary. 

1  defy  any  lawyer  to  controvert  this  statement  by  point- 
ing out  any  statute  now  of  force,  requiring  a  member  of 
the  House  of  Commons  to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy  be- 
fore the  Lord  Steward  or  his  Deputy,  prior  to  his  entering 
the  House. 

This  brings  me  into  the  body  of  the  House,  and  here  1 
have  a  third  proposition  to  adduce  and  prove.  Before  1 
do  so,  let  me  make  two  observations. 

The  first  is,  that  even  if  the  statutes  of  he  5th  Elizabeth, 
and  7th  James  I.,  above  cited,  had  ni^t  ueen  repealed,  yet 
I  could  successfully  contend  that  t'tey  were  rendered  in- 
operative by  the  act  of  Union  between  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland. 

The  second  is,  that  the  oath  of  supremacy,  in  the  5th  Eli- 
zabeth, is  an  affirmative  oath,  asserting  that  the  Sovereign 


I- 


I   'I 


is  the  head  of  the  church — an  oath  which  Dissenters  and 
Presbyterians  equally  reject  with  Catholics. 

I  now  come  to  the  third  proposition — it  is  this  :  "  That  I 
incur  no  penalty,  privation,  or  forfeiture,  by  sitting,  speak- 
ino-,  and  votinir*  in  the  House  without  takinof  the  oath  of 
supreniacy,  or  makinof  the  solemn  declaration  against  tran- 
substantiation  in  the  House  itself." 

This  is  the  main  point  in  the  case  :  if  I  prove  this  propo- 
sition, I  establish  my  right  incontrovertibly. 

It  is  plain  that  here  I  am  called  on  to  prove  a  negative. — 
But  I  am  prepared  to  do  so.  I  will  raise  the  objections  to 
mv  sittino-  and  votinof  fairly,  and  1  intend  to  solve  them 
completely. 

The  statutes  which  require  oaths  and  declarations  to  be 
taken  and  made  are  these— the  30th  Charles  H.,  sec.2,  cap.  1, 
and  1st  William  and  ^lary,  cap.  1. 

The  first  of  these  statutes  was  enacted  under  the  in- 
fluence of  that  fanatic  folly  and  barbarity  which  disgraced 
that  period  of  English  history,  by  the  countenance  given  to 
the  sanguinary  fable  called  Titus  Oates's  Plot. 

By  the  second  section,  that  statute  required  every  mem- 
ber of  the  House  of  Commons  to  take  the  oaths  of  alle- 
giance and  supremacy,  and  to  make  the  declaration  that 
here  is  no  transubstantiation  in  the  elements  after  conse- 
cration ;  and  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  the  invoca- 
tion of  the  saints,  as  used  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  are  im- 
pious and  idolatrous. 

The  third  section  provides  a  tribunal  before  which  these 
oaths  are  to  be  taken — namely,  the  House  of  Commons, 
with  the  Speaker  in  the  chair. 

The  fourth  section  enacts  disabilities,  penalties,  and  for- 
feitures of  a  most  grievous  nature  ;  disability  to  hold  any 
office  or  place  of  trust,  civil  or  military,  under  the  crown  ; 
disabdity  from  thenceforth  to  sit  or  vote  in  either  House  of 
Parliament ;  disability  to  sue  as  plaintiff  in  any  court  of  law 
or  equity;  disability  to  be  guardian  of  any  child;  disabi- 
lity to  be  executor  or  administrator  to  any  person,  or  to 
take  any  legacy  or  deed  of  gift,  and  also  a  forfeiture  of  500/. 
to  be  recovered  by  any  common  informer. 


The  seventh  section  directs  in  the  event  of  any  member 
of  the  House  of  Commons  refusing  to  take  these  oaths  that 
a  new  writ  should  issue  to  return  a  new  member  in  the 
place  of  such  defaulter. 

Thus  the  plan  of  enforcing  these  horrible  oaths  was  com- 
plete— it  consisted  of  these  particulars:— 

1st.  It  directed  every  member  of  the  House  of  Commons 
to  take  these  oaths  previous  to  sitting  or  votmg. 

2<i.  It  framed  a  tribunal  to  administer  the  oaths. 

3d.  It  created  a  disability  to  continue  a  member  of  the 
House  in  case  of  refusal  to  take  these  oaths  before  that  tri- 

bunal.     And,  ,        i      c.       i 

4th.  It  provided  a  remedy  by  authonzmg  the  Speaker 
to  issue  a  new  writ,  in  case  these  oaths  were  not  taken  be- 
fore that  tribunal. 

Now,  whilst  we  are  upon  this  statute,  let  me  miplore  your 

deliberate  attention  to  the  following  train  of  thought:— 

Suppose,  for  one  moment,  that  the  statute  of  the  30th  of 

Charles  II.,  which  I  have  just  analyzed,  had  contamed  only 

the  first  of  the  four  preceding  clauses,  and  even  only  part  of 

that ;  suppose  it  merely  directed  the  oaths  to  be  taken  by  the 

members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  without  limitmg  any 

time  within  which  the  oath  should  be  taken,  and  that  it  did 

not  frame  any  tribunal,  or  create  any  authority  to  adminis- 

ter  the  oath,  and  that  it  did  not  create  any  disability,  for- 

feiture,  or  penalty,  for  refusing  or  declining  to  take  that 

oath,  and  that  it  provided  no  remedy  in  the  event  of  such 

refusal.     Suppose  all  these  things,  and  see  whether  the  fol- 

lowing  propositions  do  not  inevitably  result:— 

IstrThat  every  member  would  have  the  entire  Parlia- 
ment to  comply  with  the  injunction  of  the  statute. 

2d  That  the  House  of  Commons  would  not  have  any  ju- 
risdiction to  administer  the  oath,  and  could  not  administer 
it.     The  House  has  no  inherent  jurisdiction  to  administer  an 

oath.  .  , 

8d.  That  the  House  of  Commons  could  not  punish  any 
man  for  not  taking  that  oath.  The  House  of  Commons  is 
not  a  court  of  criminal  jurisprudence,  nor  indeed  any  court 
of  justice  at  all. 


8 


9 


4th.  That  the  House  of  Commons  would  not  have  any 
remedv  in  its  power  or  jurisdiction  in  the  event  of  a  neglect 
to  take  the  oath. 

I  think  I  mav  sav  with  ffreat  confidence,  and  I  do  sav  it 
with  perfect  confidence,  that  there  is  not  a  lawyer  in  the 
British  dominions,  whose  opinion  can  have  weio^ht,  that 
will  controvert  any  of  the  four  propositions  I  have  thus 
laid  down. 

If  such  a  one  be  found,  let  him  not  overlay  the  subject 
with  words,  or  deviate  into  extrinsic  topics,  but  let  him 
come  to  the  point  directly, — let  him  sustain  his  opinion  by 
any  reasoning  he  can,  and  allow  me  to  anticipate  his  cer- 
tain defeat. 

Now,  any  one  of  these  propositions  conceded  to  me,  de- 
cides the  entire  question  in  my  favour. 

I  believe  there  is  not  one  human  beinof  in  existence  ac- 
quainted  with  the  principles  and  spirit  of  our  laws,  so  de- 
void of  intellect  as  to  assert  that  the  statute  of  the  30th 
Charles  II.,  if  it  contained  a  mere  direction  to  take  the 
oaths,  would  have  been  equally  potential  as  a  law  as  it  was 
when  it  limited  the  time  for  taking  the  oath,  framed  a  tri- 
bunal to  administer  the  oath,  enacted  penalties  and  disabi- 
lities for  not  taking  the  oath,  and  provided  the  remedy  in 
the  event  of  a  refusal  to  take  the  oath. 

Yet  if  this  be  not  practically  effected,  which  could  not, 
with  decency,  be  asserted,  my  right  to  sit,  speak,  and  vote, 
unimpeded  by  any  decision  of  that  House,  is  perfectly  clear, 
as  I  shall  presently  demonstrate. 

I  return  to  the  second  of  the  statutes  I  have  above  cited, 
as  requiring  oaths  to  be  taken  within  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, the  1st  of  William  and  Mary,  cap.  1. 

The  third  section  of  that  statute  adopts,  by  a  distinct  re- 
ference, in  terms,  the  declaration  contained  in  the  30th  of 
Charles  H.,  and  it  substitutes  a  new  oath  of  supremacy  in 
the  place  of  the  former  oath  of  supremacy,  which  is  repealed 
by  the  second  section. 

The  former  oaths  of  supremacy  asserted  positively  that 
the  King  was  the  head  of  the  church — the  new  oath  of  su- 
premacy, contained  in  the  1st  of  William  and  Mary,  cap.  1, 


•i 


and  repeated,  totidem  verbis,  in  the  1st  of  William  and 
Mary,  cap.  8,  is  merely  negative.  It  denies  to  any  foreign 
power  or  prelate  any  spiritual  jurisdiction.  The  Protestant 
Dissenters,  Presbyterians,  &c.,  could  not  take  the  first;  all 
Protestants  and  even  infidels  could  take  the  second. 

The  3d  section  of  the  1st  of  William  and  Mary,  cap.  1, 
enacts,  that  this  second  or  new  oath  of  supremacy,  with  the 
declaration  contained  in  the  30th  Charles  H.,  shall  betaken 
and  made  by  every  Member  of  Parliament,  within  the  time, 
and  in  the  same  manner  and  form,  and  under  the  penalties 
and  disabilities  as  by  that  act  are  ordained,  and  not  at  any 
other  time  or  in  any  other  manner.  These  concluding  words 
are  very  important. 

That  the  30th  of  Charles  II.  was  embodied  by  express 
enactment  with  the  1st  of  William  and  Mary,  with  this  ex- 
ception,  that  the  oath  of  supremacy  was  altered. 

And  thus  by  means  of  these  two  statutes  it  is  conceded 
that  from  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  William  and 
Mary,  to  the  Union  between  England  and  Scotland,  any 
member  of  the  House  of  Commons  who  refused  to  take  the 
oaths  within  the  House,  incurred  various  disabilities  of  the 
most  grievous  nature,  and  amongst  them  he  forfeited  his 
seat.  His  refusal  before  becoming  a  member  to  take  the 
oaths  did  not,  and  could  not,  disqualify  him  from  being 
elected.  He  was  eligible,  but  he  incurred  the  forfeiture  of 
his  seat,  by  the  act  of  refusing  to  take  the  oaths,  he  being 
then  an  elected  member  of  the  House. 

Such  was  the  state  of  the  law  with  respect  to  the  Parlia- 
ment of  England.  It  was  the  English  Parliament  until  the 
union  with  Scotland,  when  it  became  the  British  Parliament. 
It  by  that  means  became  another  and  a  different  body, 
insomuch  so  that  a  mere  majority  of  English  representatives 
could  no  longer  pass  a  bill,  even  one  relating  to  England, 
if  opposed  by  the  Scotch  members.  It  became  a  new  body, 
in  which  England  could  legislate  for  Scotland,  and  Scot- 
land shared  the  leofislation  of  Ensfland. 

This  new  body,  the  British  Parliament,  could  not  be 
bound  by  any  statute  relatingf  exclusively  to  the  former 
body,  the  English  Parliament.     The  30th  of  Charles  II., 


10 


and  the  1st  of  William  and  Mary,  would,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  have  been  altogether  inapplicable  to  the  British 
Parliament.  This  was,  of  course,  foreseen,  and  accordingly 

provided  against. 

The  22d  article  of  the  union  between  England  and  Scot- 
land made  the  requisite  provision  in  that  behalf.  See  5th 
and  6th  Anne,  cap.  8. 

It  is  of  vital  importance  to  the  understanding  of  this  mat- 
ter that  the  22d  article  of  the  union  with  Scotland  should 
be  kept  in  view.    The  provisions  of  that  article  are  these : — 

1st.  It  regulates  the  number  of  Scotch  peers — namely,  16. 

2d.  It  reo-ulates  the  number  of  Scotch  members  of  the 
House  of  Commons — namely,  45. 

3d.  It  regulates  the  time  and  manner  of  meeting  of  the 
first  Parliament  of  Great  Britain.     And, 

4th.  It  prescribes  the  oaths  to  be  taken  by  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  British  Parliament.     Thus— 

It  recited  expressly,  and  by  titles  and  dates,  the  30th  of 
Charles  II.,  the  1st  of  William  and  Mary,  caps.  1  and  8; 
and  it  directed  tliat,  until  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain 
should  otherwise  direct,  all  the  Members  of  the  British  Par- 
liament should  take  the  oaths  and  make  the  declaration 
mentioned  in  these  acts  (mark  what  follows),  at  such  time, 
and  in  such  manner,  as  the  members  of  the  English  Parlia- 
ment were,  by  those  enumerated  acts,  directed  to  take 
them,  upon  the  penalties  and  disabilities  in  the  said  respec- 
tive acts  contained. 

Thus  the  30th  Charles  II.  and  the  1st  William  and  Mary 
were  embodied  in  the  Legislative  Union  with  Scotland;  not 
in  part  merely,  but  in  all  their  details.  The  Scotch  Union 
did  not  merely  adopt  the  oaths  mentioned  in  these  acts,  but 
it  also  adopted  the  time  and  manner  of  taking  them,  and 
expressly  enacted  the  penalties  and  disabilities  for  not  tak- 
ing them.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  taking  of  the  oaths 
was  as  necessary  in  the  British  Parliament  as  it  was  in  the 
English  Parliament ;  and  that  the  same  penalties  and  disa- 
bilities would  be  incurred  by  the  not  taking  of  these  oaths. 
But  why  does  it  so  follow  ?  Simply  because  it  was  expressly 
and  in  terms  enacted  that  it  should  be  so. 


11 


The  British  Parliament  was  thus  bound  by  positive  enact- 
ments ;  the  law  was  express  and  clear  during  all  the  period 
that  intervened  between  the  Scotch  and  Irish  Union. 
During  all  that  period,  any  member  who  refused  to  take 
the  oaths  in  the  House  incurred  a  forfeiture  of  his  seat.  It 
was  not  (as  I  have  said  before  of  the  English  Parliament) 
that  the  law  created  a  priori  an  ineligibility,  but  that  a  dis- 
ability to  retain  the  seat  was  created  by  the  refusal  to  take 

the  oaths. 

So  stood  the  law  of  Parliament  until  the  Irish  Union. 

It  being  admitted  that  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to  retain 
a  seat  in  the  British  Parliament,  to  take  the  oaths  within  the 
House,  now  it  is  idle  to  cite,  as  Lord  Colchester  has  done, 
cases  that  occurred  during  the  continuance  of  that  Parlia- 
ment, as  applicable  to  the   present  and  altered   state  of 

things. 

The  Irish  Union  annihilated  the  British  Parliament,  as 
the  Scotch  Union  had  annihilated  the  English  Parlia- 
ment. 

From  the  Irish  Union  a  new  legislative  body  arose— 
English  and  Scotch  members  became  entitled  to  legislate 
for'lreland  ;  Irish  members  became  entitled  to  legislate  for 
England  and  Scotland.  All  the  business  relative  to  Eng- 
land and  Scotland  might  be  transacted  in  the  present  House 
of  Commons  by  Irish  members  alone. 

The  present  Parliament,  the  Parliament  of  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland—a  title  too  long  to 
be  repeated— is  not  bound  by  any  act  to  regulate  the  Eng- 
lish Parliament. 

The  30th  of  Charles  II.  was  effectual  to  bind  the  English 
Parliament— it  did  not  bind  the  British  Parliament— it 
does  not  bind  the  United  Kingdom  Parliament.  The  30th 
of  Charles  II.  was  at  one  time  applicable  to  the  member  for 
Middlesex :  it  is,  and  always  was,  totally  inapplicable  to 
the  member  for  Clare.  All  these  allegations  are  equally 
true  of  the  1st  of  William  and  Mary. 

So  the  22d  article  of  the  Scotch  Union  bound  the  British 
Parliament— it  does  not  bind  the  United  Kingdom  Parlia- 
ment.    The  22d  article  of  the  Scotch  Union  was  at  one 


\ 


/ 


12 


time  applicable  to  the  member  for  Midlothian— it  is,  and 
always  was  totally  inapplicable  to  the  member  for  Clare. 

This  brings  us  to  the  period  of  the  Irish  Union  ;  until  we 
arrive  at  that  Union  there  is  nothing-  to  require  "  the  mem- 
ber for  Clare"  to  take  any  oaths  in  any  place  in  England. 
By  the  common  law  no  oaths  are  necessary  to  enable  a 
member  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  none 
could  possibly  have  been  required  by  the  common  law,  in- 
consistent with  the  Catholic  religion,  which  was  the  reli- 
gion of  those  who  framed  or  adopted  the  common  law. 

Bv  the  common  law  the  House  of  Commons  had  no  power 
to  administer  an  oath.  The  House  of  Commons  could  not, 
and  cannot,  by  any  act  of  its  own,  arrogate  to  itself  an  au- 
thoritv  to  administer  an  oath. 

Thus  the  ground  is  completely  cleared  to  the  period  of 
the  Irish  Union.  First,  the  common  law  required  no  oaths 
to  be  taken  within  or  without  the  House.  Secondly,  the 
House  had  no  common  law  authority  to  administer  an  oath. 
Thirdly,  all  the  statutes  which  were  passed  in  England  or 
Great  Britain  prior  to  the  Irish  Union,  relative  to  the  Eng- 
lish or  British  Parliament,  are  of  themselves  totally  inap- 
plicable to  the  United  Kingdom  Parliament. 

The  entire  case  against  me  must  turn,  therefore,  on  some 
positive  enactment  in  the  Irish  Union  statute,  or  in  some 
statute  of  the  United  Kingdom  Parliament.  I  assert  posi- 
tively that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Irish  Union  statute,  or  in 
any  subsequent  statute,  which  inflicts  any  species  of  penalty, 
disability,  or  forfeiture  whatsoever,  on  any  member  of  the 
House  of  Commons  for  refusing  or  neglecting  to  take  the 
obnoxious  oaths. 

This  is  my  case.  The  penalties  and  disabilities  for  not 
taking  the  obnoxious  oaths  were  enacted  first  by  statutes, 
which  bound  the  English  Parliament ;  and  secondly,  by  a 
statute  which  bound  the  British  Parliament.  There  is  no  such 
statute  bindintr  the  United  Kingdom  Parliament.     None. 

!T'-re  allow  me  to  request,  that  gentlemen  who  are  pleased 
to  read  this  letter  with  attention,  will  pause  for  one  moment 
and  call  to  distinct  recollection  what  is  the  rule  and  the 
maxim  of  common  sense  and  common  law,  relative  to  penal 


13 

statutes,  and  "how  strictly  and  rigidly  such  statutes  must  be 
construed. 

The  Irish  Union  Act  does  not  create  any  penalty  or  dis- 
ability for  refusing  to  take  these  oaths — the  only  part  of 
that  act  which  relates  to  oaths  is  the  fourth  article.  The 
fourth  article  of  the  Irish  Union  is  that  which  corresponds 
with  the  22d  article  of  the  Scotch  Union.  The  provisions 
of  that  article  are  these: — 

1st.  It  regulates  the  number  of  Irish  Peers — namelv, 
thirty-two,  four  spiritual  and  twenty-eight  temporal. 

2d.  It  regulates  the  number  of  the  Irish  members  of  the 
House  of  Commons. 

3d.  It  regulates  the  rotation  of  spiritual  Peers,  and  the 
creation  and  extinction  of  Irish  Peerages. 

4th.  It  regulates  the  qualification  of  Irish  members. 

5th.  It  regulates  the  time  and  manner  of  the  meeting  of 
the  first  Parliament  of  the  United  Kingdom,  and  the  num- 
ber to  sit  in  that  Parliament.     And, 

Gthly.  With  respect  to  oaths,  it  contains  nothing  more 
than  these  words: — "  That  every  member  of  the  House  of 
Comnwns  shall,  until  the  Parliament  of  the  United  King- 
dom shall  otherwise  provide,  take  the  oaths,  and  make  and 
subscribe  the  declaration,  and  take  and  subscribe  the  oath 
now  by  law  enjoined  to  be  taken,  made,  and  subscribed  by  the 
Lords  and  Commons  of  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain." 

That  is  all.  A  mere  temporary  direction  to  take  the 
oaths,  without  any  species  of  sanction  to  enforce  the  takino* 
of  them. 

For  take  notice,  and  mark  it  particularly,  that  no  time  is 
limited  for  taking  the  oaths,— no  manner  of  taking  these 
oaths  is  prescribed,  pointed  out,  or  alluded  to, — no  person 
or  body  is  authorized  to  administer  the  oaths. 

Time  is  left  at  large  ;  at  least  to  the  extent  of  the  entire 
Parliament.  Manner  is  left  at  large  to  the  utmost  conceiv- 
able extent  of  all  and  every  the  modes  of  oath-taking. 

No  authority  is  given  to  any  body  to  tender  or  call  for 
these  oaths;  but  above  all,  and  before  all,  I  may  remark, 
and  let  it  not  for  a  moment  escape  your  recollection,  no 
penalty  is  mentioned  or  referred  to — no  disability  is  men- 
tioned or  referred  to. 


1 » 


14 


Recollect  also,  that  no  statute  is  recited,  mentioned,  or 
referred  to,  and  not  one  word  to  creat  any  penalty  or  dis- 
ability whatsoever — not  one, 

I  need  not,  surely  I  need  not,  repeat,  that  penalties 
and  disabilities  are  odious  to  our  law,  and  that  not  one, 
evBU  the  meanest  of  the  King-'s  subjects,  can  incur  any  pe- 
nalty or  disability  whatsoever,  by  or  from  any  implication 
or  conjecture,  or  mere  constructive  notion  or  otherwise, 
save  by  the  express  words  of  a  positive  and  direct  en- 
actment. 

To  introdace  penalties  or  disabilities  in  any  other  way, 
would  be  the  most  gross  and  palpable  oppression — it  would 
subvert  the  very  first  and  most  sacred  principles  of  our  ju- 
dicial system. 

I  appeal  to  honour,  candour,  and  truth  to  reg-ulate  the 
discussion  of  this  important  question,  and  to  decide  on  its 
merits.  This  is  a  penal  statute.  Construe  it  strictly  :  that 
I  am  entitled  to  ask,  and  respectfully  to  require. 

This  is  a  penal  statute  :  you  cannot,  the  House  of  Com- 
mons cannot,  add  one  word  to  it. 

This  is  a  penal  statute  :  you  cannot  extend  it  by  any  im- 
plication. 

This  is  a  penal  statute  :  if  there  be  a  doubt  upon  it,  I  am 
entitled  to  a  favourable  construction ;  but,  indeed,  there 
is  no  doubt,  and  I  may  well  waive  that  point. 

This  is  a  penal  statute :  it  uses  only  affirmative  words, 
which,  even  in  the  most  extensive  sense,  do  not  take  awav 
any  common  law  rig'lit. 

In  fine,  there  is  no  penalty  or  disability  enacted — there 
cannot  possibly  be  any  penalty  or  disability  implied. 

Even  if  penalty  or  disability  could  be  implied,  which 
every  lawyer  must  deny,  yet  there  is  not  any  kind  of  ne- 
cessity for  any  such  implication — not  the  least. 

I  call  upon  you  to  observe  these  distinctions  and  dif- 
ferences between  the  22d  article  of  the  Scotch  Union,  and 
the  4th  article  of  the  Irish  Union. 

First — The  Scotch  article  referred  to,  and  recited  by 
titles  and  dates,  the  30th  Charles  II.,  and  1st  William  and 
Mary.  The  Irish  Union  article  does  not  refer  to,  or  re- 
cite any  one  of  them. 


15 


Ik 


Second — The  Scotch  artick  directed  the  oaths  to  be  taken 
at  the  time  mentioned  In  those  statutes.  The  Irish  article 
does  not  say  one  word  to  rej^ulate  or  to  limit  the  time. 

Third — The  Scotch  article  directed  the  oatlis  to  be  taken 
in  the  manner  contained  in  the  acts  to  which  it  expressly 
refers.  The  Irish  article  does  not  say  one  word  of  the 
manner  of  taking  the  oaths. 

Fourth — The  Scotch  article  declared  that  the  oaths 
should  be  taken  upon  the  penalties  mentioned  in  the  sta- 
tutes which  it  recited.  The  Irish  article  is  totally  silent  as 
to  penalties. 

Fifth — The  Scotch  article  declared  that  the  oaths  should 
be  taken  upon  the  disabilities  mentioned  in  the  statutes 
which  it  recited.  The  Irish  article  is  tatally  silent  as  to 
disabilities. 

With  these  marked  and  most  important  differences,  is  it 
possible  that  any  person  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  con- 
sider the  subject,  should  arrive  at  this  preposterous  con- 
clusion— "  That  the  Scotch  article  and  Irish  article  enact 
and  mean  the  same  i\\\x\^V'  And  if  that  cannat  be  said, 
the  question  is  at  once  decided  in  my  favour* 

It  is  indeed  as  clear  as  the  sun  at  noon-day,  that  the  sta- 
tute law,  since  the  Irish  Union,  stands  thus  : — "  There  is  a 
statutory  direction  to  every  member  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons to  take  the  oaths,  but  there  is  no  time  limited  for 
taking  them;  there  is  no  place  appointed  for  taking  them 
in ;  there  is  no  tribunal  appointed  to  administer  them  ; 
there  is  no  penalty  for  not  taking  them,  there  is  no  disabi- 
lity incurred  by  refusing  to  take  them." 

As  there  is  no  time  limited  by  the  statute  law  for  taking 
the  oaths,  the  House  of  Commons,  if  it  were  to  require  me 
to  take  them  before  I  could  sit  or  vote,  would  be  guilty  of 
a  manifest  injustice  to  me,  and  of  an  usurpation,  of  legis- 
lative functions.  It  would  make  the  vote  of  the  House 
equivalent  to  an  act  of  Parliament. 

As  there  is  no  place  or  manner  of  taking  the  oaths  pre- 
scribed by  the  statute,  the  House  of  Commons  would  be  in- 
volved in  a  similar  double  guilt,  if  it  were  to  dictate  the 
manner  of  taking  these  oaths;  besides,  it  could  not,  with- 


16 

out  the  most  gross  violation  of  the  constitution,  command 
me  to  take  the  oaths  before  the  House  itself.  The  House  has 
no  power  to  tender  or  administer  these  or  any  other  oaths. 

But  the  other  two  objections  to  the  exercise  by  the  House 
of  Commons  of  an  adverse  summary  decision  in  my  case, 
are  still  more  irresistible.  The  statute  inflicts  no  penalty ; 
the  House  of  Commons  cannot  possibly  create  one.  The 
statute  inflicts  no  disability;  the  House  of  Commons  can- 
not possibly  create  a  disability. 

I  do  not  anticipate  that  my  rights  will  be  trampled  on 
by  the  House  of  Commons,  but,  without  intending  olfence, 
I'may  be  permitted  to  say,  that  if  they  shall  be  so,  then  the 
rights  not  only  of  the  people,  but  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
will  be  equally  trampled  upon ;  and  it  is  not  all  these 
rights  alone,  but  the  prerogatives  of  the  King  will  be 
equally  trodden  under  foot.  Because  should  1  be  excluded 
bv  a  vote  of  the  House  of  Commons,  then,  in  my  instance, 
the  House  of  Commons  will  have  usurped  legislative  autho- 
rity, and  by  its  simple  vote  will  have  enacted  penalties 
and  disabilities  of  the  most  grievous  nature. 

I  am  of  course  bound  not  to  anticipate  any  such  result, 
and  to  entertain  the  confident  expectation,  that  as  the  Le- 
gislature has  not  enacted  any  penalty  or  disability  for  a 
refusal  to  take  the  oaths,  so  no  one  branch  of  that  Legisla- 
ture will  assume  the  functions  that  belong  exclusively  to 
the  entire,  and  create,  by  its  vote,  a  disability  of  the  most 
important  nature. 

It  may,  however,  be  alleged,  that  as  the  statute  directs 
the  oaths  to  be  taken,  it  is  a  misdemeanour,  and  indictable, 
as  such,  to  neglect  taking  them.  To  which  I  reply,  that 
even  if  it  were  so,  that  is  no  reason  why  I  should  be  ex- 
cluded from  sitting  and  voting  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

But,  in  truth,  no  indictment  could  be  sustained  against 
me,  because,  in  the  first  place,  the  time  for  taking  the  oaths 
not  being  defined  or  limited  by  the  statute,  I  have  all  the 
time  I  continue  a  member  to  take  the  oath  before  any  in- 
dictment could  be  preferred.  I  must  have  ceased  to  be  a 
member  before  anv  indictment  can  be  framed,  and  even 
then  the  annual  indemnity  act  would  protect  me. 


17 

But,  in  the  second  place,  no  particular  manner  of  taking 
the  oaths  is  pointed  out  by  the  Irish  Union  statute  ;  and  if 
the  indictment  were  for  not  taking  the  oaths  within  the 
House  of  Commons,  the  indictment  would  be  liable  to  a 
demurrer,  and  could  never  be  sustained  in  point  of  law. 
On  the  contrary,  so  far  from  any  member  in  the  House  of 
Commons  being  indictable,  since  the  Irish  Union,  for  not 
taking  the  oaths  at  the  table  in  the  House,  it  may,  perhaps, 
be  said,  that  the  officer  who  administers  these  oaths  is  not 
quite  free  from  legal  responsibility  for  doing  so  without 
any  legal  authority. 

This,  then,  is  the  short  history  of  the  law  respectino-  these 
oaths.  None  of  these  oaths  were,  or  could  have  been, 
taken  in  the  House  of  Commons  until  the  30th  of  Charles  IJ. 
From  that  period  until  the  Scotch  Union,  any  member  of 
the  English  House  of  Commons  who  refused  or  neglected  to 
take  these  oaths,  incurred,  by  positive  statute,  a  disability 
to  sit  or  vote  in  the  English  Legislature. 

From  the  Scotch  to  the  Irish  Union,  any  member  of  the 
British  House  of  Commons  who  refused  or  neglected  to 
take  these  oaths  in  the  House,  incurred,  by  positive  sta- 
tute, a  disability  to  sit  or  vote  in  the  British  House  of  Com- 
mons. 

From  the  Irish  Union  to  the  present  period,  no  member 
of  the  United  Parliament  incurs,  by  refusing  or  neglecting- 
to  take  these  oaths,  any  disability  whatever ;  there  beino- 
since  the  Irish  Union,  no  statute  of  force  creating  any  dis- 
ability on  that  account  in  any  member  of  Parliament. 

I  conclude  my  observations  on  this  point  by  again  im- 
ploring the  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  bear  in 
mind,  that  penal  and  disabling  statutes  are  to  be  construed 
strictly — that  they  cannot  be  extended  by  construction  or 
implication — that  "words"  cannot  be  added  to  them — that 

doubtful  words  in  them  are  to  be  construed  favourablv, 

and  that  no  affirmative  words  take  away  a  vested  right.     I 
desire  and  expect  to  get  the  benefit  of  the  law. 

I  should  here  close  this  letter  if  I  had  not  been  informed 
by  a  gentleman  of  much  respectability,  that  some  influential 
persons  in  the  House,  in  discussing  the  questions  respecting 

c 


A 


18 


my  rights,  had  distinctly  admitted,  and  I  believe  the  Speaker 
himself  was  present  at  the  time,  that  my  right  to  sit  and 
vote  was  quite  clear  upon  the  Irish  Union  Act,  and  could 
not  be  disputed,  if  there  had  not  been  a  subsequent  statute 
on  the  subject. 

That  statute  was  said  to  be  the  4lst  Geo.  III.  cap.  52, 
and  the  section  alleged  to  be  applied  to  my  case  is  the 
second  section. 

I  deem  it  to  be  of  the  easiest  imaginable  proof  to  demon- 
strate that  the  41st  Geo.  III.  cap.  52,  does  not,  and  cannot, 
affect  this  question. 

There  is  not  one  word  in  this  statute  relative  to  oaths  or 
declarations — not  one  word.  It  is  expressly  an  act  to  carry 
into  effect  another  and  a  different  part  of  the  fourth  sec- 
tion of  the  Irish  Union  Act.  It  is  in  its  nature  a  penal  and 
disabling  act,  to  be  construed  by  the  rules  already,  per- 
haps, too  often  laid  down. 

The  statute  41st  Geo.  III.  cap.  52,  does  not  touch  this 
case  at  all— it  relates  to  incapacities  created  by  certain 
emplovments  and  offices,  rendering  the  party  incapable  of 
being  elected  if  the  employments  or  offices  were  held  prior 
to  the  election,  and  creating  a  forfeiture  of  the  seat  if  they 
were  obtained  after  the  election.  This  is  so  plain  to  any 
man  who  reads  the  statute  dispassionately,  that  it  would  be 
a  waste  of  words  to  dilate  on  it. 

But  the  matter  will  be  put  beyond  a  doubt  by  one  simple 
view  of  the  subject :  it  is  this— attend  to  it,  I  pray.  The 
second  section  enacts,  "  That  all  persons  disabled  from,  or 
incapable  of,  being  elected,  or  sitting  and  voting  in  the 
House  of  Commons  of  Ireland,  should  be  disabled  from, 
and  incapable  of,  being  elected  or  sitting  and  voting  in 
the  House  of  Commons  of  the  Parliament  of  the  United 
Kinofdom." 

You  will  remark  at  the  first  view  of  this  clause,  that  the 
disability  and  incapacity  to  be  elected  can  have  nothing  to 
do  with  a  disability  created  after  due  election,  by  a  refusal 
to  take  certain  oaths. 

This  affords  a  clue  to  the  right  construction  of  the  statute 
in  that  strict  and  limited  sense  in  which  it  must,  in  point  of 


19 

law,  be  construed.  But  I  waive  every  thing  else  to  come  to 
a  smgle,  and  you  will  see,  conclusive  point.    It  is  this  :— 

Conceding,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  disability 
mentioned  in  this  section  is  a  disability  created  by  a  neglect 
to  take  the  qualification  oaths;  then  this  comfortable  con- 
clusion inevitably  follows,--that  every  single  member  from 
Ireland  is  disabled  to  sit  or  vote  in  the  present  Parliament. 
Because,  before  the  Union,  every  member  of  the  Irish 
House  of  Commons  incurred  a  disability  to  speak  or  vote, 
and  forfeited  his  scat,  unless  he  took  the  oaths  in  the  Irish 
House  of  Commons  in  the  presence  of  the  Irish  Speaker, 
and  of  at  least  forty  members  sitting  in  the  Irish  House  of 
Commons. 

The  taking  the  oaths  alone  would  not  do;  the  takino- 
them  m  the  presence  of  the  Speaker  of  the  English  or  ol* 
the  British  House  of  Commons  would  not  suffice  to  prevent 
the  member  of  the  Irish  House  of  Commons  from  incurrino- 
the  disability  and  forfeiture  of  his  seat.  "^ 

An  Irish  member  might  have  taken  the  oaths  one  hundred 
times  before  all  the  judges  and  magistrates  in  both  conn- 
tries:  he  might  have  taken  them  one  hundred  times  before 
the  Speaker  of  the  British  House  of  Commons,  and  in  a 
full  British  Parliament.  All  was  quite  unavailino-.  He 
must  have  taken  them  in  the  presence  of  the  Speaker  of 
the  Irish  House  of  Commons  in  a  full  House,  otherwise  he 
was  disabled  to  sit  or  vote. 

If  this  section,  therefore,  applies  to  the  oaths,  then  every 
Irish  member  must  revive  the  Irish  House  of  Commons  call 
up  the  Irish  Speaker,  and  forty  Irish  Members,  and'take 
the  oaths  in  their  presence;  otherwise  he  is  inevitably  dis- 
abled  from  sitting  or  voting  in  the  Parliament  of  the  United 
Kingdom. 

^    See  what  a  glaring  absurdity  would  follow  from  constru- 
ing the  4Ist  of  George  III.  to  apply  to  the  qualification. 
n  that  be  so,  every  Irish  member  returned  to  the  Plouse  of 
Commons  since  1801,  has  been  a  stranger  in  the  House 
ivithout  right  to  sit  or  vote ! ! ! 

1  need  not  dwell  on  this  topic.  It  proves,  bevond  a  pos- 
bility  of  doubt,  that  the  4Ist  George  111.  cap.' 62,  cannot 

c  2 


f  1 


20 

apply  to  this  species  of  disability,  and  that  the  statute  re- 
lates only  to  those  incapacities  which  are  personal  to  the 
individuals  who  come  within  their  range,  and  render  them 
ineligible  if  existing  prior  to  election. 

I  also  waive,  for  the  present,  the  objection  which  has  been 
powerfully  urged  to  the  validity  of  the  statute  of  the  3d 
William  and ''Mary,  cap.  2d,  as  a  law  binding  the  Irish 
nation.  I  reserve  to  myself  the  power  hereafter  of  insist- 
ing on  that  very  powerful  and  interesting  objection.  I 
confine  myself,  for  the  present,  to  this,— that  if  every  Irish 
member  who  was  disabled  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  Irish  House 
of  Commons  be  disabled  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  present  Par- 
liament, then  there  is  not  one  single  Irish  member  capable 

of  sitting  and  voting.  .      ,     ,  .  i   rr  u 

Not  one  of  them  could  sit  or  vote  in  the  Irish  House,  be- 
cause not  one  of  them  has  taken  the  oaths  or  made  the  de- 
claration in  a  full  House  of  the  Irish  Parliament,  with  the 
Speaker  in  the  chair,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  3d 

William  and  Marv,  cap.  2.  ,  r   u 

You  must,  therefore,  totally  disembarrass  the  case  of  the 
41st  George  HI.  cap  52,  and  take  it  upon  the  Union  Act. 

The  Union  Act  was  one  now  admitted  universally  in  Ire- 
land to  have  been  most  pernicious  to  that  country.  It  was 
intended  by  its  framers  to  have  been  the  harbinger  of  reli- 
gious peace. 

Mr.  Pitt  was  quite  sincere  in  his  intention  of  consum- 
matincT  the  measure  by  an  equalization  of  civil  rights  to  all 
his  Majesty's  subjects  in  Ireland.  He  framed  the  articles 
of  the  Union  candidly  and  sincerely  with  that  view,  and  to 
facilitate  the  future,  and,  as  he  thought,  the  then  approach- 
ino-  definitive  arrangements  for  the  final  adjudgment  of 
Catholic  emancipation.  It  seems  clear  that  it  was  on  this 
account  he  purposely  omitted  to  enact  any  pains,  penalties, 
disabilities,  or  forfeitures  for  omitting  to  take  the  obnoxious 

oaths.  1     XT  • 

This  advantage  we  have  gained  by  the  Union,  as  a  miser- 
able  consolation  for  the  destitution  of  our  national  institu- 
tions,  and  the  desolation  of  our  country.  Is  thjs  solitary 
advantage  to  be  taken  away  from  us,  and  the  Union  only  to 


21 


be  observed  where  it  presses  upon  Catholic  Ireland,  and  to 
be  violated  with  impunity  where  it  proves  beneficial? 

The  law,  and  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  law,  are 
both  with  me.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  ima- 
gine that  Mr.  Pitt  and  Lord  Castlereagh  could  have  ac- 
cidentally omitted  in  the  Irish  Union  Act  all  reference  to 
penalties  or  disabilities.  This  accident  would  have  been 
still  more  strange  when  it  is  recollected  that  the  fourth 
article  of  the  Irish  Union  is  manifestly  a  transcript  of  the 
greater  part  of  the  22d  article  of  the  Scotch  Union.  The 
latter  must  have  been  before  the  eyes  of  those  who  drew 
out  the  former.  The  inference  of  design  and  intention  in 
the  omission  seems,  therefore,  irresistible. 

I  call  upon  you,  respectfully  and  earnestly,  to  give  your 
patient  and  deliberate  attention  to  this  subject.  It  requires 
an  honest  and  an  earnest  attention  from  men  who  are  not 
professional  lawyers,  to  unravel  the  jargon  of  our  statute 
law,  and  to  get  rid  of  the  prejudices  arising  from  precon-*, 

ceived  opinion. 

I  am  not  at  all  surprised  that  such  prejudice  should  exist, 
and  that  when  first  I  asserted  the  right  of  a  Catholic  to  sit 
and  vote  in  Parliament,  I  should  have  been  met  by  an  almost 
universal  disbelief.  I  acknowledge  that  I  myself  entertained 
similar  prejudices  until  the  events  connected  with  the  election 
for  Clare  compelled  me  to  examine  deliberately  the  sta- 
tute-law in  this  respect,  and  enabled  me  to  perceive,  as 
others  had  done  before  me,  that  Mr.  Pitt  was  perfectly  sin- 
cere in  the  determination  which  he  avowed,  to  consummate 
the  Irish  Union  by  admitting  the  Catholics  to  all  the  bene- 
fits of  the  British  Constitution,  and  that  he  had  prepared 
the  articles  of  the  Irish  Union  with  perfect  good  faith  to 
achieve  our  emancipation. 

What  a  multitude  of  turmoils,  dissensions,  crimes,  and 
miseries,  would  Ireland  have  escaped,  and  what  an  im- 
mense saving  of  expenditure,  and  increase  of  consumption 
of  her  manufactures,  would  have  accrued  to  England  for 
the  last  twenty-eight  years,  had  Mr.  Pitt  been  permitted  to 
carry  his  plan  into  full  execution,  and  to  emancipate  the 
Catholics  of  every  rank  and  station,  as  he  promised  at  the 
Union. 


22 


You  will  have  perceived  that  mj  ri^ht  to  sit  and  vote  in 
Parliament  is  established  by  this  short  summary: — 

First — That  tliere  is  nothing  in  the  common  law  to  take 
away  or  infrinofe  on  that  ricrht. 

Second— That  the  statutes  of  5th  Elizabeth  and  7th 
James,  which  required  oaths  of  allegiance  and  supremacy 
to  be  taken  in  the  Lord  Steward's  office,  are,  in  that  re- 
spect, repealed  by  the  statute  1st  William  and  Mary. 

Third — That  penalties  and  disabilities  created  by  the  sta- 
tutes 30th  Charles  II.,  and  1st  William  and  Mary,  were  ap- 
plicable to  the  English  Parliament  only. 

Fourth — That  the  penalties  and  disabilities  in  these  sta- 
tutes were  expressly  applied,  and  continued  to  be  applicable 
to  the  British  Parliament,  by  the  22d  article  of  the  union 
with  Scotland. 

Fifth — That  none  of  the  penalties  or  disabilities  in  these 
statutes  were  applied  to,  or  continued  for,  the  United 
Kingdom  Parliament,  by  the  fourth  article  of  the  Irish 
Union. 

Sixth — That  neither  the  time  nor  manner  of  takino-  the 
oaths  in  the  English  statutes  is  enacted  by  the  Irish  Union 
statutes,  or  is  now  any  portion  of  the  law  of  the  United 
Kinofdom  Parliament. 

Seventh — That  the  statute  of  the  41st  of  Ceorffe  III.. 
cap.  52,  does  not  and  cannot  apply  to  the  oaths  and  decla- 
rations, because  (amongst  many  other  reasons),  if  it  did  so 
apply,  it  would  now  be  utterly  impossible  for  any  Irish 
member  to  avoid  being  disabled  to  sit  and  vote. 

I  conclude  this  abstract  with  repeating  this  one  indis- 
putable maxim  of  constitutional  law — that  to  create  penal- 
ties or  disabilities  there  must  be  a  positive  and  express  law. 
They  cannot  be  created  by  conjecture,  guess,  or  impli- 
cation. 

Recollect,  gentlemen,  that  I  incur  a  fearful  responsi- 
bility if  1  take  my  seat  under  an  erroneous  opinion  of 
right.  I  forfeit  500/.  per  day — I  become  an  outlaw,  in- 
capable of  holding  any  office  of  power  or  trust — of  suing 
at  law  or  in  equity — of  accepting  any  legacy  or  gift — of 
being  executor  or  administrator,  or  of  being  guardian 
even  to  my  own  children. 


23 


With  the  number  of  malignant  enemies  which  have  been 
created  for  me  by  my  career  of  honest,  fearless,  disinte- 
rested and  indefatigable  exertions  in  the  sacred  cause  of 
liberty  of  conscience, — with  such  a  host  of  enemies,  I  must 
be  deeply  impressed  by  the  conviction  that  I  am  right  in 
point  of  law,  else  I  should  be  mad,  or  worse  than  mad,  to 
Tun  the  risk  of  taking  my  seat. 

If  it  be  intended  to  try  the  question  fairly,  let  an  action 
be  brought  against  me  for  a  penalty  of  500/.  I  will  plead 
at  once  to  issue  either  in  law  or  in  fact.  The  opinion  of 
the  Court  of  King's  Bench,  and,  if  desirable,  of  the  House 
of  Lords,  can  thus  be  had  on  the  Irish  Union  Act ;  if,  in- 
deed, a  serious  doubt  can  exist  on  that  subject  in  the  mind 
of  any  lawyer,  who  knows  that,  without  express  enactment, 
penalties  or  disabilities  cannot  be  created. 

I  have  been  fairly  and  freely  elected  and  chosen  by  the 
freeholders  of  the  county  of  Clare.  No  member  of  the 
House  of  Commons  has,  or  indeed  can  have,  a  better  title 
than  I  have,  to  insist  on  the  validity  of  his  election  as  a  re- 
presentative of  the  people.  I  am  a  representative  of  the 
Irish  people  calling  for  the  observance  of  the  treaty  of  the 
Union,  and  the  benefit  of  the  existing  law. 

There  is,  I  know,  enough  of  strength  and  of  power  to 
deprive  me  of  the  stipulations  of  the  one,  and  the  advan- 
tage of  the  other.  But  the  eye  of  the  nations  of  Europe 
and  of  the  world  is  on  this  contest. 

What  do  I  contend  for?  It  is  to  free  Protestant  and 
Catholic  from  the  burden  of  abominable  oaths.  You 
swear  that  the  Pope  has  not,  and  ought  not,  to  have  any 
spiritual  authority  in  this  country. 

How  can  he  swear  so  ?  That  you  should  swear  the  Pope 
ought  not  to  have  spiritual  authority  in  this  realm,  is  quite 
consistent  with  your  opinions. 

You  deny  the  right,  and  you  swear  to  the  denial  of  the 
right.  But  then  you  also  deny  the  fact,  and  yet  you  know 
that  the  fact  exists.  The  existence  of  the  fact  is  as  clear  as 
the  sun  at  noon-day — nay  more.  You  make  an  annual 
grant  of  money  to  educate  clergymen  for  the  maintenance 
and  support  of  that  very  spiritual  authority  which  you,  on 
your  oaths,  deny  to  exist  at  all. 


24 


We,  the  Catholics,  have  been  most  falsely  calumniated 
when  a  disreg-ard  to  the  sacred  obligations  of  an  oath  has 
been  attributed  to  us. 

We  are,  and  have  been,  excluded  from  the  full  enjoyment 
of  the  constitution  by  no  other  means  than  by  our  conscien- 
tious respect  for  that  sacred  oblig'ation.  But  may  I  be  per- 
mitted to  exclaim,  great  and  good  God  !  how  inscrutable  are 
thy  judgments — how  unsearchable  are  thy  wavs !  Those 
who  reproach  the  ancient  religion  of  the  land  with  dis- 
respect to  the  sacredness  of  oaths,  do  themselves,  every  one 
of  them,  prelates,  peers,  and  commoners,  swear  that  a  fact 
does  not  exist,  which  fact  they  not  only  behold  before  their 
eyes  in  full  existence,  but  actually  contribute  to  preserve 
and  maintain ! 

I  do  not  intend  to  retaliate  by  any  reproach,  but  I  am  en- 
titled to  ask  whether  every  conscientious  Protestant  will  not 
rejoice  if  I  shall  be  able  to  establisli  this — that  it  is  totally 
unnecessary  for  members  of  Parliament  to  take  this  oath. 

Whatever  shall  be  the  consequence  of  refusing  to  take 
this  oath,  I  call  on  every  conscientious  Protestant  to  refuse 
to  take  it.  In  the  name  of  that  eternal  God  who  shall  judge 
us  all,  I  adjure  you  not  to  trifle  with  the  sacredness  of  his 
holy  name,  and  not  to  attest  it  to  the  denial  of  the  existence 
of  that  spiritual  authority  which  is  daily  exercised  over  full 
one-third  of  all  the  subjects  of  this  realm.  I  should  deem 
my  life  well  sacrificed  to  prevail  on  any  one  man  to  refuse 
to  take  such  an  oath  as  that. 

The  next  oath  which  you  take  is  that  solemn  declaration 
in  the  presence  of  God,  that  there  is  no  transubstantiation, 
and  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  and  the  invocation  of  the 
saints,  as  now  used  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  are  impious  and 
idolatrous !  !  ! 

Is  there  a  sinHe  man  in  Parliament  who  would  not  feel 
relieved  if  lie  could  avoid  taking  this  oath?  What,  Sirs,  to 
testify  in  the  presence  of  God,  that  all  the  Catholics  of  Eng- 
land, Scotland,  Ireland,  France,  Germany, — all  His  Majes- 
ty's emancipated  Catholic  subjects  of  Hanover, — all  the  Ca- 
tholics of  Italy,  Spain,  Russia,  Greece,  and  the  Americas, 
are  idolaters.  To  swear  this  wholesale  and  in  the  lump,  that 
we  who  would  not  for  the  world's  worth,  or  for  the  world's 


(  ! 


25 


crudest  tortures,  adore  aught,  save  the  Eternal  and  Living 
God? — \f  ho  (suppose  the  worst,  but  as  1  deny  the  truth  to 
be)  may  be  mistaken  in  the  spot  in  which  we  place  that 
Living  and  Eternal  God,  but  who  adore  him,  and  him  alone 
renouncing,  detesting,  and  for  ever  anathematizing,  any 
adoration  of  divine  worship,  save  of  Him,  and  of  him  alone. 
To  swear  that  we  are  idolaters ! ! ! 

1  will  not  pursue  this  topic,  but  let  me,  through  you,  con- 
jure every  conscientious  Protestant  who  detests  calumny, 
and  respects  the  sanctity  of  oaths,  to  aid  me  in  getting 
rid  now  and  for  ever  of  this  species  of  unhallowed  swear- 
ing. 

1  have  heard  that  to  take  these  oaths  is  one  of  the  pri- 
vileges of  Parliament,  and  that  the  not  taking  of  them  is 
a  breach  of  Parliamentary  privilege  for  which  a  member 
might  be  expelled.  What  a  notion  of  privilege  !  Privilege 
to  swear  what  is  not  decorous  even  if  it  were  true  !  Pri- 
vilege to  swear  what  is  not — but  hold,  I  must  not  finish  the 
sentence. 

There  is  one,  and  only  one  more  observation,  which  calls- 
for  your  attention.  I  acknowledge  the  spiritual  authority 
of  the  Pope  with  as  much  distinctness  as  I  deny  and  abjure 
any  temporal  or  civil  authority,  direct  or  indirect,  on  his 
part.  I  believe  with  the  certainty  of  faith  in  transubstan- 
tiation. I  cherish  in  like  manner  the  adorable  sacrifice  of 
the  mass.  I  believe  that  the  invocation  of  the  blessed 
Mother  of  our  Divine  Redeemer,  and  of  the  other  saints,  as 
used  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  is  a  pious  and  very  salutary 
practice.  Well,  believing  all  this,  I  have  only  to  go  to  the 
table  of  the  House,  and,  the  Speaker  being  in  the  chair,  and 
at  least  forty  members  attending,  I  have  only  totally  and 
distinctly  to  deny  all  this  upon  my  oath,  and  what  follows? 
Why,  that  I  shall  be  a  foul  perjurer — that  of  course ;  but 
this  also  follows — that  from  that  moment  all  disability  and 
incapacity  ceases,  and  I  am  both  a  perjurer  and  a  recog- 
nized member  of  the  House  of  Commons  of  the  United 
Kincrdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 

If  any  one  thing  stands  in  my  way,  that  one  thing  is  a  re- 
fusal to  commit  perjury.    Let  me  be  punished  by  what  has 


I 


t_ 


I' 


26 

been  so  often  called  the  most  enlightened  assembly  in  the 
world,  for  not  committing  a  perjury. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be, 

With  all  due  sentiments  of  respect, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

DANIEL  O'CONNELL, 

Member  for  the  county  of  Clare,  in  that  part  of  the 
United  Kingdom  called  Ireland. 


To  Edward  BuRTEj^sHAtv  Sugden^  Esq.,  one  of 
His  Majestj/^s  Counsel,  learned  in  the  Law, 

LETTER  L 


•*  Would  that  mine  enemy  would  write  a  book  !" 


Sir, — Your  reputation  at  the  Chancery  bar  is  high;  no 
man  ranks  before  you  in  the  estimation  of  that  branch  of 
the  profession.  You  have  earned  that  reputation,  and  won 
that  rank,  without  any  other  patronage  save  what  you  ob- 
tained from  your  own  talents  and  arguments. 

Your  fame  in  the  forensic  circles  as  an  author  is  still 
more  flattering.  There  are  few  works  in  the  profession  of 
which  I  should  be  so  proud  to  be  the  writer  as  your  first 
publication.  There  is  a  fearless  independence  in  the  re- 
vision of  the  opinions  of  great  men;  there  is  a  manly  asser- 
tion of  principle  over  great  authorities;  there  is  a  quantity 
of  research  that  does  credit  to  your  dilinfence,  and  a  clear 
distinctness  of  discrimination  that  does  honour  to  vouriud"-- 
ment.  The  combination  of  all  these  qualities  in  one  book 
could  be  found  only  in  the  work  of  a  man  of  a  very  superior 
order  of  intellect. 

I  do  justice  to  your  understanding — I  am  equally  ready 
to  do  justice  to  your  integrity.  I  cannot  refuse  you  credit 
for  habitual  purity  of  political  conduct.     But   it  is  not  for 


27 


m'"  to  say  how  far  those  who  have  marked  more  minutely 
your  career  in  politics  will  concur  in  the  praise  of  that 
purity.  It  suffices  for  me  to  leave  it  altogether  unques- 
tioned. 

There  is  one  virtue  which  I  know  you  to  possess — it  is  that 
virtue  which  prohibits  the  absence  of  any  of  the  propitious 
divinities — prudence.  You  have  never  felt  yourself  co- 
erced to  controvert  the  political  views  of  the  great  or  the 
powerful.  You  have  never  been  opposed  to  ''  the  givers 
of  gifts."  How  singularly  fortunate  it  must  have  been  that 
you  alone,  of  all  the  silken  sages  of  the  bar,  should  have 
discovered  that  undefined  law  which  is  to  supersede  the  old 
common  law  of  the  land,  and  introduce  into  penal  statutes 
a  convenient  extension  by  the  mere  force  of  equity.  There 
shall  be  in  future  a  Chancery  side  in  our  criminal  law,  and 
the  learned  Edward  Sugden,  Lord  of  Burtenshaw,  shall  be 
the  first  Vice-Chancellor.  The  innocent,  who  may  escape 
the  perils  of  indictment  and  jury,  and  the  consequent  dan- 
ger of  the  rope  and  the  axe,  shall  more  certainly  fall  before 
the  keen  razor  of  the  Rhadamanthus  of  criminal  equity! 

You,  an  equity  lawyer,  are  in  truth  a  mere  volunteer  iti 
this  controversy.  A  small  portion  of  that  modesty  for 
which  my  countrymen  are  famed  would  have  sufficed  to 
guard  you  against  the  perils  of  adventuring  on  a  branch  of 
the  law  to  which  you  must  have  been  almost  a  total  stranger. 
This  rash  step  of  yours  might  perhaps  be  called  presump- 
tion by  a  person  disposed  to  use  harsh  language ;  but  if 
not  presumptuous,  it  certainly  was  highly  indiscreet  on  your 
part  to  accuse  those  who  venture  to  differ  from  you,  of 
ignorance. 

In  plain  truth,  Sir,  this  was  exceedingly  indiscreet  on  your 
part.  It  not  only  justifies,  but  requires  me,  in  my  own  de- 
fence, to  retaliate  on  you  in  terms  which  I  should  prefer 
not  to  use,  and  to  accuse  you,  as  I  do  now  distinctly,  of 
having  exhibited  gross  ignorance — ignorance  so  gross  as 
to  be  absolutely  ludicrous. 

I  am  bound  to  prove  the  truth  of  this  charge,  and  the 
proof  is  perfectly  easy. 

You  have  composed,  written,  printed,  and  circulated  a 


^ 


28 


pamphlet  ag-ainst  my  rig-ht  to  sit  in  Parliament,  This  was 
a  deliberate  act  on  your  part, — as  deliberate  as  it  was  un- 
eailed  for  by  any  professional  or  personal  duty.  Had  you 
succeeded  in  your  labour,  I  am  vain  enough  to  think  that 
the  office  of  Master  of  the  Rolls  (and  his  Honour  is,  alas! 
in  bad  health)  would  not  have  been  too  great  a  reward  for 
the  sly  David  of  Chancery  who  would  have  crushed  the 
Irish  giant  of  agitation.  You,  of  course,  did  not  dream  of 
any  such  reward;  but  you  have  shewed  a  zeal  worthy  of 
any  meed  of  recompense. 

Now,  mark  my  proof  of  your  ignorance.  Your  pamphlet 
is  entitled  ^a-/rac/5  ^rom  the  Acts  of  Parliament  relating 
to  the  Oaths  to  he  taken  by  the  Members  of  the  Imperial 
Parliament, 

You  wrote,  you  printed,  you  circulated  this  pamphlet  in 
utter  ignorance  of  the  existence  of  the  most  important  act 
amongst  those   statutes — the    1st   of  William   and   Mary, 

c    1  "* 

This  mistake — allow  me  to  adopt  a  gentle  word  in  the 
place  of  your  more  rough  phraseology — this  mistake  is  so 
very  gross,  it  is  so  enormous,  that  it  is  scarcely  credible  that 
any  lawyer  could  possibly  commit  it.  Why,  the  Joe  Miller 
story  of  the  village  performance  of  the  tragedy  of  Hamlet, 
the  part  of  Hamlet  omitted  by  particular  desire,  is  nothing 
to  this  omission  of  yours. 

Yet  in  my  native  land,  in  the  land  of  my  fathers,  I  can  at- 
tain neither  rank  nor  station.     I  toil  for  life  beyond  the 

bar,  whilst  you! but  let  my  throbbing  heart  rest  a  while, 

and  let  me  return  to  my  volunteer  assailant. 

It  is,  I  repeat,  almost  incredible  that  you  should  have 
made  and  written,  and  circulated  such  a  blunder  ;  but  yet 
it  must  be  believed — here  is  your  pamphlet  before  me — 
"  London,  printed  for  the  author.'*  There  it  is,  in  the  fourth 
pao'e,  the  second  in  the  work,  you  proceed  to  enumerate 
the  statutes  described  in  your  title-page  ;  you  begin  by  re- 
ferring- to  the  5th  Elizabeth,  c.  1,  sec.  16,  for  the  oath  of 
supremacy ;  you  next  cite  the  3  Jac.  I.  c.  4,  and  the  7 
Jac.  I.  c.  6,  for  the  oath  of  allegiance. 

Let  every  lawyer  in  the  House  of  Commons  mark  the 


29 


next  step  you  take— I  hope  I  shall  be  able  to  make  it  intel- 
ligible to  every  member  of  that  House.  Your  next  step  is 
this— you  proceed  to  cite  the  1st  William  and  Mary,  c.  8, 
sec.  1,  as  repealing  the  oaths  in  the  former  acts,  and  substi- 
tuting new  oaths  of  supremacy  and  allegiance.  You  then 
refer  to  the  fifth  section,  as  requiring  the  new  oaths  to  be 
taken  in  such  manner,  at  such  times,  before  such  persons, 
and  in  such  courts  and  places,  as  they  should  have  been 
taken  if  the  former  oaths  were  still  unrepealed. 

You  then  sum  up  the  law  as  being  founded  on  those  sta- 
tutes. Your  summing  up  is  in  these  words:—"  Thus  the 
law  stood  before  the  union  with  Ireland,  as  regards  the  oaths 
of  allegiance,  and  supremacy,  and  abjuration,  which  were 
directe'd  to  be  taken  by  every  member  before  he  entered 

the  House.'' 

You  yourself  must  now  admit  that  the  history  of  our  law 
does  not  furnish  an  instance  of  such  total  and  blundering 
inaccuracy  as  is  contained  in  such  your  summary  of  the 

law. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  you  totally  omit  the  1st  William 
and  Mary,  c,  1,  which  is  the  only  statute  applicable  to  the 
matter  in  hand-— an  omission  of  the  most  strange  and  sin- 
gular nature ;  and,  in  the  next  place,  you  have  relied  on 
the  1st  William  and  Mary,  c.  8,  which  is  an  act  totally  inap- 
plicable to  members  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

Your  sin  of  commission  is  indeed  a  mighty  one— your  sin 
of  omission  is  still  greater. 

How  is  it  possible  to  account  for  your  total  omission  of 
the  1st  William  and  Mary,  c.  1?  Was  it  design  ?  Of  that 
I  shall  at  once  acquit  you.  It  would  argue  a  disposition 
so  foreign  from  propriety  to  omit  that  statute  designedly, 
that  I  hold  you  quite  incapable  of  any  such  turpitude. 

Was  it  omitted  through  ignorance  >  Come,  Sir,  you  can- 
not deny  it.  Even  the  strange  and  futile  attempt  which  you 
have  made  by  a  subsequent  pamphlet— a  species  of  postli- 
minious  preface  to  your  former— to  do  away  the  force  of  the 
clear  provisions  of  the  1st  William  and  Mary,  c.  1,  proves 
beyond  controversy,  that  if  you  had  not  been  ignorant  of  the 
existence  of  that  statute  when  you  wrote,  printed,  and  cir- 


30 


ciliated  your  first  pamphlet,  you  would  have  deemed  it  ne- 
cessary to  canvass  its  provisions.  It  would,  perhaps,  be 
more  suited  to  the  courtesy  with  which  I  should  desire  to 
treat  you,  in  despite  of  your  most  unnecessary,  and  certainly 
most  ill-judg-ed  interference  in  this  question, — it  would,  I 
say,  be  more  suitable  to  suppose,  that  if  you  had  been  aware 
of  the  existence  of  the  decisive  act  of  the  1st  William  and 
Mary,  c.  I,  you  either  would  not  have  written  any  pamphlet 
at  all  on  this  subject,  or  at  all  events  you  would  have  omitted 
that  part  of  your  work,  by  which  you  attempt  to  prove  that 
the  oath  of  supremacy  must  be  taken  by  members  of  the 
Commons  before  they  enter  the  House. 

But,  sacred  Heaven,  how  could  you  have  been  ignorant 
of  that  statute?  Why,  it  was  not  only  a  most  important  act 
in  matter  of  law,  but  it  was  an  historical  document  of  the 
most  signal  interest  and  value  in  the  constitutional  and  po- 
litical history  of  this  country.  It  was  the  statute  which  first 
enabled  Presbyterians  and  Protestant  Dissenters  to  sit  in 
Parliament.  It  was  in  that  respect  a  wise,  salutary,  and 
beneficent  act  of  emancipation  to  a  large  class  of  most 
valuable  subjects.  The  former  statutes  recited  by  you  re- 
quired an  affirmative  oath  of  supremacy,"  that  the  King 
was  supreme  head  of  the  church."  No  Protestant  Dissen- 
ter could  take  that  oath  any  more  than  a  Catholic.  The 
act  1st  William  and  Mary,  c.  1,  repealed  that  oath,  and  sub- 
stituted for  it,  with  reference  to  members  of  Parliament,  a 
negative  oath — a  mere  denial  that  any  foreign  Prince  or 
Prelate  had  spiritual  authority  in  England,  and  thus  flung 
open  the  doors  of  Parliament  to  Presbyterians  and  other 
Protestant  Dissenters.  How  is  it  possible  that  you  were 
ignorant  of  that  act? 

You,  Sir,  were  ignorant  of  this  act — of  this  all-important 
act, — you  rush  headlong  into  print,  and  decide  a  most  im- 
portant question  with  ti  jejune  flippancy  not  to  be  exceeded 
even  by  this  demonstration  of  your  ignorance. 

Thank  Heaven  you  are  not  as  yet  a  Judge !  You  have, 
before  you  ascend  the  steps  of  that  tribunal  (whatever  it  be) 
to  which  your  professional  reputation  and  Parliamentary 
propensities  seem  to  destine  you,  time  to  reflect  and  to  cor- 


31 


rect  yourself.  May  this  be  the  last  occasion  on  which  you 
shall  take  upon  you  to  decide  before  you  comprehend,  and 
to  infringe,  by  your  unfounded  judgment,  upon  a  most 
valuable  and  almost  sacred  right— O,  non  sic  omnia  !  !  ! 

But  I  gladly  turn  from  the  contemplation  of  that  part  of 
the  subject  which  presents  you  in  so  unfavourable  a  point  of 
view,  and  1  come  to  argue  the  question  which  is  at  issue  be- 
tween us.  You  assert  as  a  result  from  the  statute-law,  that 
the  oath  of  supremacy  must  be  taken  by  every  member  of 
Parliament  before  he  enters  the  House. 

1  draw  the  directly  contrary  inference,  and  assert  with 
great  confidence,  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  any  member 
of  Parliament  to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy  before  he  en- 
ters the  House. 

This  was  my  first  practical  position  in  my  letter  to  the 
members  of  the  House  of  Commons— namely,  that  it  is  not 
now  necessary  to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy  in  the  Lord 
Steward's  office  or  elsewhere,  before  entering  into  the  body 

of  the  House. 

Whether  any  such  oath  be  necessary  within  the  House  it- 
self, is  another  question ;  the  negative  of  which  I  am  quite 
prepared  to  maintain ;  but  at  present  I  confine  myself  to 
the  preliminary  inquiry. 

I  assert  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  take  the  oath  of  supre- 
^  macy  before  I  enter  the  House.     You  assert  that  it  is :  the 
proof  of  the  affirmative  lies  on  you,  and  you  accordingly 
proceed  in  your  attempt  to  establish  it. 

Your  case  is  this :— You,  in  the  first  place,  cite  the  5th 
Eliz.  c.  I,  and  the  3  Jac.  c.  3,  and  the  7th  Jac.  c.  6.  These 
statutes,  I  admit,  prove  your  case  as  far  as  they  go.  I 
concede  that  they  provided,  not  by  means  of  any  implica- 
tion or  extension  by  equity,  but  in  the  only  way  in  which 
they  could  do  it— by  positive  and  explicit  enactment— that 
every  member  of  the  Commons  should  take  the  oath  of 
supremacy  in  the  Lord  Steward's  office  before  he  should 
be  permitted  to  enter  the  House. 

This  is  express,  and  these  statutes  would  at  once  decide 
the  question  against  me,  if  they  be  still  of  force ;  but  they 
are  not.    You,  yourself,  admit  that  they  are  not  now  of 


32 


force,  nor  have  thev  been  so  since  the  revolution  in  1688, 
There  is  an  end,  therefore,  of  jour  first  proof.  It  consisted 
of  statutes  not  now  operative  propria  virfore. 

You  then  take  up  the  second  part  of  your  case,  and  you 
assert  that  a  subsequent  statute  substituted  a  different  form 
of  oath  of  supremacy  for  the  members  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  required  them  to  take  such  substituted  oath 
in  the  Lord  Steward's  office  before  they  should  enter  the 
House. 

To  prove  this  part  of  your  case,  on  which  the  question 
hinges,  you  cite  the  1st  of  William  and  Mary,  c.  8,  and  in 
particular  you  rely  on  the  5th  section  of  that  act. 

Of  tliat  act  you  allege  these  two  things — first,  that  it  pre- 
scribed a  new  oath  of  supremacy  to  be  taken  by  members 
of  the  Commons;  and,  secondly,  that  the  5th  section  regu- 
lated the  time,  manner,  and  place  of  taking  the  new  oath 
by  such  members,  and  so  regulated  them  by  a  direct  adop- 
tion in  that  respect  of  the  former  statutes.^ 

I  deny  both  these  allegations.  I  first  deny  that  the  1st  of 
William  and  Mary,  c.  8,  enacts  any  thing  relative  to  mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Commons ;  secondly,  I  deny  that  the 
5th  section  is  at  all  applicable  to  such  members. 

Now,  let  that  act  be  read  patiently,  and  1  think  every 
candid  lawyer  will  admit  that  it  does  not  apply  at  all  to 
members  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

First — It  does  not  purport  to  apply  to  members  of  that 
House,  nor  are  members  of  the  Commons  ever  named  in  it, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 

Secondly — There  are  in  the  act  several  enumerations  of 
persons  who  are  thereby  directed  to  take  these  oaths,  and 
as  members  of  the  Commons  are  not  mentioned  in  it,  the 
rule  of  law  directly  applies,  expressio  unins  est  exclusio 
alterius. 

Thirdly — Such  enumeration  includes  persons  of  degrees 
much  inferior  to  the  members  of  Parliament,  down  to  the 
local  magistrates  of  boroughs  and  port  towns.  I  assume 
you  are  aware  of  another  rule  of  law,  which  decides  that 
whenever  any  of  the  statutes  particularly  enumerates  per- 
sons or  things  of  inferior  rank  or  quality,  such  act  must 


33 

be  construed  to  exclude  persons  or  things  of  superior  rank 
or  quality.  This  rule  completely  excludes  members  of  Par- 
liament from  the  operation  of  the  act  in  question. 

Fourthly. — You  are  of  course  aware  that  all  the  acts  of 
each  session  constitute  but  one  statute,  therefore  the  8th 
chapter  of  the  statute  1st  William  and  Mary  must  be  con- 
strued in  conjunction  with  the  1st  chapter  of  the  same  sta- 
tute. Now  that  first  chapter  expressly  abrogates  the  acts 
of  the  5  Elizabeth,  c.  1.  3  Jac.  c.  4,  and  7  Jac.  c.  6,  as  far 
as  they  relate  to  the  oaths  of  supremacy  and  allegiance  to 
be  taken  by  members  of  Parliament.  It  would  therefore 
be  absurd  to  the  last  degree  of  absurdity,  to  consider  the 
8th  chapter  of  the  statute  as  regulating  by  implication  any 
matter  relative  to  the  former  oaths  of  members  of  Parlia 
ment,  when  these  oaths  had  been  already  abolished  by  the 
1st  chapter  of  the  very  same  statute. 

Fifthly.— The  5th  section  of  the  8th  chapter  of  the  3d 
William  and  Mary,  which  you  have  cited  at  length,  is  quite 
decisive  against  you — so  decisive  as  to  render  your  case 
quite  hopeless.  Because,  while  it  certainly  includes  by 
express  words  in  its  enactment,  all  persons  who  were  there* 
fore  bound  to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy,  it  as  certainly 
excludes  by  proviso  from  such  enactment,  all  such  persons 
concerning  whom  other  provision  should  be  made  in  that 
act,  or  in  any  ether  act  of  that  present  session  of  Parlia- 
ment. Now,  provision  was  made  on  that  behalf  concerning 
members  of  Parliament  by  another  act  of  the  same  session, 
namely,  the  first  chapter.  It  follows,  by  the  plainest  logic, 
that  the  regulation  which  you  rely  on  as  to  the  time  and 
manner  of  taking  the  oaths  cannot  possibly  apply  to  mem- 
bers of  Parliament. 

Allow  me  to  observe  that,  there  being  a  reference  in  the 
5th  section  to  other  acts  of  that  session  regulating  these 
oaths,  it  is  passing  strange  that,  with  the  reference  before 
your  eyes,  you  should  have  omitted  to  make  search  for 
such  acts.  It  was  excessive  neglect  on  your  part  not  to 
make  a  search  ^o  which  you  were  thus  invited.  Had  your 
object  been  merely  to  afford  an  excuse  to  the  "  laymen'*  of 
the  House  of  Commons  for  making  in  my  case  an  unjust 


mi 


34 

and  illeg'al  decision,  you  would  have  omitted  to  search  for 
acts  of  Parliament  confirmatory  of  my  ri^ht  ;  but,  as  1  take 
you  to  be  totally  incapable  of  any  such  motive,  I  confine 
myself  to  expressing  again  my  astonishment  at  your  mira- 
culous neglect  and  oversight. 

Let  it  now  be  once  again  observed,  that  you  insist  that 
the  oath  of  supremacy  must  be  taken  by  members  of  the 
House  of  Commons  before  they  enter  the  House. 

The  abstract  of  your  proof  is  this — that  the  statutes  5th 
Eliz.  c.  1.  3  Jac.  c.  4,  and  7  Jac.  c.  6,  rendered  it  neces- 
sarv  to  take  that  oath  in  the  Lord  Steward's  office,  before  a 
member  could  be  permitted  to  enter  the  House.  Your 
next  proof  is  the  1st  William  and  Mary,  c.  8,  sec.  5,  which, 
adopting  the  substituted  oath  of  supremacy,  required  it  to 
be  taken  by  the  same  persons,  in  the  same  manner,  at  the 
same  time  and  place,  as  the  original  oath  of  supremacy  was 
required  to  be  taken. 

Such  is  the  full  abstract  of  your  case.     The  abstract  of 

my  reply  is  this  : — 

1.  1  admit  that  the  statutes  of  Elizabeth,  and  of  James  L 
require  each  member  of  the  Commons  to  take  the  oath  of 
supremacy  in  the  Lord  Steward's  office,  before  he  enters 
the  House.     In  this  we  are  both  agreed. 

2.  I  assert  that  those  statutes  have  been  in  this  regard  re- 
pealed. You  admit  this,  and  therefore  on  this  second  point 
we  are  both  agreed. 

3.  I  assert  that  this  repeal  was  effected  by  the  1st  chapter 
of  the  statute  Ist  William  and  Mary.  You  assert  that  it 
was  effected  by  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  same  statute.  Here 
we  distinctly  differ. 

4.  I  assert  that  the  act  of  the  1st  William  and  Mary,  cap. 
1.  directs  members  of  Parliament  to  take  the  oaths  within 
the  House,  and  not  elsewhere.  You  overlooked  this  act  al- 
together in  your  first  pamphlet,  and  in  your  second  misre- 
presented it. 

This  is  the  very  point  in  dispute.  If  it  be  true  that  it 
is  the  eighth  chapter  which  has  abrogated  the  former  oath 
of  supremacy  to  be  taken  by  members  of  Parliament,  and 
substituted  a  new  oath  for  them ;  in  that  case  1  offer  to  ad- 


'im 


^^^' 


35 


mit  that  the  5th  section  does  sufficiently  revive  the  time 
and  place  of  taking  that  oath,  and  consequently  that  you 
would  be  right  in  asserting  that  every  member  of  the  Bri- 
tish Parliament  was  bound  to  take  that  oath  before  he  en- 
tered the  He  use. 

But  it  is  not  true  that  it  was  the  8th  chapter  which  did 
this  or  any  of  this ;  for,  in  the  first  place,  the  8th  chapter 
could  not  abrogate  the  former  oaths  for  members  of  Par- 
liament, simply  because  that  was  already  done  by  the  1st 
chapter.  In  the  second  place,  it  was  not  the  8th  chapter 
which  substituted  tlie  new  oath  for  such  members,  because 
that  was  already  done  by  the  1st  chapter.  In  the  third 
place,  the  5th  section  of  the  8th  chapter  does  not,  and  can- 
not possibly  apply  to  members  of  Parliament,  because  it  is 
expressly  declared  in  that  very  section  itself,  that  it  docs 
not  apply  to  persons  concerning  whom  any  provision  was 
made  by  any  other  act  of  that  session.  Now  provision  was 
actually  made  concerning  members  of  Parliament  by  the 
first  act  of  that  very  session. 

Thus,  Sir,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  you  totally  fail  in  pro- 
ving that  the  oath  of  supremacy  should  be  taken  by  mem- 
bers before  enterino^  the  House.  The  act  of  Parliament 
which  you  rely  on  totally  fails  you. 

Thus,  too,  I  have  shewn  that  there  is  no  act  requiring  the 
oaths  of  allegiance  and  supremacy  to  be  taken  by  members 
of  Parliament  before  they  enter  the  House. 

But  my  case  is  stronger  still,  because  the  4th  section  of 
the  1st  William  and  Mary,  c.  I,  expressly  enacts  that  the 
substituted  oaths  of  supremacy  and  allegiance  shall  be  taken 
by  the  members  of  Parliament,  together  with  the  oaths  and 
declarations  in  the  30th  Charles  II.,  and  within  the  time, 
and  in  manner  and  form  as  prescribed  by  that  act, — that  is, 
in  the  House  itself,  the  Speaker  being  in  the  chair ;  and 
there  are  these  emphatic  words — "  and  not  at  any  other  time 
or  in  any  other  manner." 

Taking  up  the  question  at  the  Irish  Union,  the  law  stood 
thus, — there  was  not  only  no  act  requiring  the  oath  of  supre- 
macy to  be  taken  by  a  member  before  he  entered  the  House, 
as  you  have  asserted,  but  there  was  a  positive  act  directing, 


36 

in  express  and  most  unequivocal  words,  that  such  onth 
should  be  taken  within  the  House,  the  Speaker  bein^  in  the 
chair,  and  not  in  any  other  manner  whatsoever. 

See  how  distinctly  this  statute  bears  out  my  origlna! 
position  in  my  letter  to  the  members  of  tlie  present  House 
of  Commons,— namely,  "  that  I  am  entitled  to  go  into  the 
House  and  claim  my  seat,  without  taking  any  oaths  incon- 
sistent with  the  Catholic  reli<^ion  out  of  the  House  itself. 

You,  Sir,  asserted  the  contrary,  and  your  high  profes- 
sional character  gave  great  weight  to  the  assertion ;  but 
you  were  at  that  time  totally  ignorant  of  the  existence  of 
the  act  of  Parliament  which  directed  the  oath  of  supre- 
macy to  be  taken  in  the  House,  and  not  elsewhere. 

1  trust  I  am  not  inclined  to  be  superstitious;  but  so  many 
of  those  events  which  are  often  called  lucky  accidents,  have 
occurred  to  forward  the  cause  of  Catholic  liberty,  founded 
as  it  is  on  the  broad  basis  of  freedom  of  conscience  to  alf 
jnen,— so  many  of  those  events  bave  lately  taken  place  be- 
yond human  expectation,  and  without  man's  exertion,— that 
1  am  inclined,  humbly,  and  with  becoming  diffidence,  to 
hope  that  the  superior  arbiter  of  human  destinies  has  fixed 
on  this  as  the  period  at  which  the  unconquered  fidelity  of 
the  Catholic  people  of  Ireland  shall  be  rewarded  by  that 
equalization  of  civil  rights  with  all  other  subjects,  which 
the  Irish  Catholics  were  always  ready  to  concede  to,  and 
contend  for,  on  behalf  of  their  oppressed  Protestant  fellow- 
Christians  in  every  part  of  the  globe. 

Perhaps  there  is  something  of  superstitious  imagining  in 
that  idea  ;  but  it  is  quite  clear  that  these  two  circumstances 
attend  my  assertion  of  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  Parliament, 

first,  that  no  one  barrister  in  England  or  Ireland  has 

ventured  to  give  his  name  to  the  public  in  denial  of  my 
Tifrht,  save  one  who  treads  the  very  footsteps  of  the  Bench  ; 
and,  secondly,  that  such  one  barrister  has  tarnished  his  pro- 
fessional reputation,  and  totally  annihilated  his  claim  for 
accuracy  of  research,  by  thrusting  forward  his  most  unsa- 
tisfactory and  unfounded  opinions  in  total  and  deplorable 
ignorance  of  the  most  important  portion  of  the  contro- 
versy. 


I 


37 

This  unfortunate  exhibition  which  you  have  made  of  your 
temerity  will,  1  trust,  deter  others  from  being  tempted  to 
be  "  in  the  like  case  offending." 

There  remain  some  other  points  in  difference  between  us 
which  1  intend  to  make  the  subject  of  one  or  two  other  let- 
ters. For  the  present  1  content  myself  with  having  placed 
beyond  any  reasonable,  or  indeed  intelligible  cavil,  my 
right  to  go  into  the  body  of  the  House  without  having  taken 
any  oath  in  the  Lord  Steward's  office,  or  elsewhere  out  of 
the  House,  inconsistent  with  the  Catholic  religion. 

Your  second  pamphlet  proves  nothing  but  this,— that  the 
fatal  blunder  contained  in  the  first  having  been  discovered, 
you  wish  to  cover  the  discredit  of  your  mistake  by  a  slight 
specimen  of  such  palpable  sophistry  that  1  must  not  conde- 
scend to  unravel  it. 

Before  I  conclude,  let  me  call  even  upon  you  to  smile  at 
the  senseless  folly  of  some  of  our  newspaper  "  legalists,"  who 
have,  forsooth,  found  out  that  the  usage  of  Parliament,  an 
usage  arising  from  statutes  passed  not  one  hundred  and  fifty 
yeaT-s  ago,  can  have  the  force  of  a  law— and  can  enable  the 
House  to  expel  a  member  without  the  sanction  of  an  act  of 
Parliament.  Most  sapient  critics  these  are  to  be  sure— most 
sagacious  and  constitutional ! ! ! 

How  1  wish  that  you  or  any  other  lawyer  would  put  his 
name  to  any  opinion  or  assertion  of  that  kind !  But  no 
lawyer,  no  rational  man  will  do  it ;  and  yet  unless  the  House 
of  Commons  collectively  shall  do  in  my  case  what  not  one 
individual  would  attempt  to  do  alone,  and  upon  the  respon- 
sibility of  his  individual  character,— and  unless  the  House  of 
Commons  shall  in  my  case  trample  on  the  law,  outrage 
constitutional  principle,— and  unless  that  House  shall  give 
an  usao-e  of  twenty-eight  years  the  form  of  a  statute ;  and, 
finally,°unless  the  House  of  Commons  shall  violate  the  so- 
lemn treaty  of  the  Union,  my  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  Parlia- 
ment is  to  the  full  as  valid  as  that  of  any  other  member 

whatsoever. 

1  am   Sir,  with  all  due  deference,  your  obedient  servant, 
JJover^sircci,  Feb.  18.  DANIEL  OTONNELL. 


PUBLISHING  BY  JAMES  RIDGWAY, 

And  tchich  may  be  had,  by  Order,  of  every  Bookseller  in  the 

United  Kingdom. 


THE    SPEECHES    OF    THE    RIGHT     HON.    GEORGE 

CANNING,  corrected  by  Himself;  with  a  Memoir  of  his  Life.  By 
R.  Therry,  Esq.,  of  Gray's  Inn,  Barrister  at  Law;  illustrated 
by  a  fine  Portrait,  Fac-similes  of  his  hand-writing-,  a  Plate  exbi- 
bitive  of  liis  mode  of  correcting  and  revising  his  Speeches,  &c.,  in 
two  important  passages  from  tlie  celebrated  one  on  Portugal  : 
6  vols.  8vo.  £3  126'. 

**  A  biog:raphical  memoir  of  the  most  illustrious  statesman  and  accomplished 
orator  of  our  age,  prefixed  to  the  only  authentic  edition  of  his  Speeches,  has  far 
superior  claims  to  notice  and  credit  over  any  of  those  ephemeral  and  hurried 
sketches  of  his  life,  which,  without  authority,  and  for  mere  abject  pui-poses  of 
lucre,  have  been  thickly  palmed  upon  the  public  attention.  ♦  *  ♦  It  embraces  the 
essence  and  substance  of  all  the  truth  that  (except  it  should  be  through  the  affec- 
tionate and  venerating  zeal  of  personal  friends  or  kindred)  will,  probably,  ever 
be  told  of  the  life  of  George  Canning."— J/onM/</  Beview. 

"  We  recommend  this  edition  of  Mr.  Canning's  brilliant,  splendid,  and  states- 
manlike Speeches,  as  the  noblest  literary  memorial  that  can  be  preserved  of  him." 
— Literary  Gazette. 

"  This  excellent  and  valuable  edition  of  Mr.  Canning's  Speeches,  by  INIr. 
Therry,  contains,  among  other  thii.g-s,  a  remarkable  instance  of  the  application  of 
the  new  process  of  typolithography.  There  is,  in  the  fii>t  volume,  a  facsimile 
of  the  proofs  of  the  celebrated  Speech  on  the  affairs  of  Portugal,  with  all  the 
corrections  made  by  Mr.  Canning.  Every  mark  which  he  made  in  the  letter- 
press, every  reference,  and  every  word  written  on  the  margin,  is  represented  as 
it  appeared  in  his  hand-writing  in  the  proofs." — Times. 

THE  SPEECHES  OF  THE  HON.  THOMAS  (afterwards 
LORD)  ERSKINE,  wben  at  the  Bar,  on  Subjects  connected  with 
the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  and  against  constructive  Treason  :  5  vols. 
8vo.  £2  lOs, 

**  These  Speeches,  stored  as  they  are  with  the  soundest  political  doctrinos,  the 
first  moral  sentiments,  and  the  purest  oratorical  beauties,  are  calculated  emi- 
nently to  enlighten,  and  permanently  to  please — they  are  qualified  to  make  men 
not  only  wiser,  but  better — to  expand  their  views,  to  study  their  principles,  and 
to  ameliorate  their  heaits — to  teach  them  to  pursue  the  dictates  of  duty  at  every 
pain  and  peril,  and  to  uphold  the  interests  of  humanity  in  every  sphere  and  sea- 
son."— Morning  Chronicle. 

**  We  take  the  opinion  of  the  country,  and  of  every  part  of  the  world  where  the 
language  is  understood,  to  be  that  of  the  most  unbounded  admiration  of  these  ex- 
quisite specimens  of  judicial  oratory,  and  of  great  obligations  to  the  Editor  of  the 
collections." — Eclin.  Jicr.  Vol.  xix. 


■^9   • 

Ml 


-I .. 


S*; 


\^: 


Valuablt'   Works  now  Publishing  by  J.  Ridgway. 

THE    SPEECHES    OF   SIR   SAMUEL   ROMILLY    in   the 

House  of  Commons,  with  Memoirs  of  his  Life.  By  William 
Peter,  Esq.,  Barrister;  illustrated  by  a. fine  Portrait  by  Rey- 
nolds, after  Sir  T.  Lawrence  :  2  vols.  26^. 

THE  SPEECHES  OF  THE  RIGHT  HON.  CHARLES 
JAMES  FOX  in  the  House  of  Commons,  with  a  correct  Portrait 
by  Opie  :  6  vols.  £4  8*. 

Fourth  Edition,  in  8^0.  price  \Qs, 

A  SELECTIOiN  from  the  PUBLIC  and  PRIVATE  CORRE- 
SPONDENCE of  VICE-ADMIRAL  LORD  COLLINGWOOD  : 
interspersed  with  Memoirs  of  his  Life.  By  G.  L.  Newnham 
CoLLiNGWooD,  Esq.,  F.R.S.  Illustrated  by  a  fine  Portrait,  a 
Pian  of  the  Battle  of  Trafalgar,  &c.  &c. 

"  We  have  been  more  highly  gratified  and  instructed  than  we  could  possibly 
have  expected  by  the  perusal  of  the  history  and  letters  of  this  noble  and  gallant 
officer,  whose  name,  except  on  one  memorable  occasion,  has  never  attracted  a 
prominent  share  of  notice  among  those  which  belonged  to  the  public  characters 
of  his  day  \  and  yet  his  services  were  of  the  most  important  nature,  and  most 
ably  conducted,  at  a  crisis  too  big  with  danger,  not  to  England  alone,  but  to  all 
civilised  Europe  ;  but  the  field  of  action  in  which  he  was  chiefly  engaged, though 
extensive,  was  at  a  distance  from  home.  »  *  *.  We  once  more  thank  the  Editor 
for  his  highly  important  and  very  valuable  work.  It  is  one  which  will  occupy  a 
permanent  place  in  the  English  Library.  *  *  •  The  portrait  of  one  English 
worthy  more  is  now  secured  to  posterity." — Quarterly  Review,  No.  74. 

*'  We  do  not  know  when  we  have  met  with  so  delightful  a  book  as  this,  or 
one  with  which  we  are  so  well  pleased  with  ourselves  for  being  delighted.  Its 
attraction  consists  almost  entirely  in  its  moral  beauty ;  and  it  has  the  rare  merit 
of  filling  us  with  the  deepest  admiration  for  heroism,  without  suborning  our 
judgments  into  any  approbation  of  the  vices  and  weaknesses  with  which  poor 
mortal  heroism  is  so  often  accompanied." — Edinburgh  Review,  No. 94. 

Second  Edition,  in  foolscap  8t'o.  price  9s, 

The  LIFE  and  REMAINS  of  WILMOT  WARWICK.  Edited 
by  his  Friend,  Henry  Vernon. 

Contents  :  Introduction — Life  of  Wilmot  Warwick — Remains — 
The  Odd  Gentleman— Christmas  Night— The  Haunted  Mill— The 
Dead  Arm  and  Ghost  of  Caesar — The  Odd  Gentleman  and  Old 
Maid— Twelfth  Day— The  Smuggler- The  Poacher— The  Wig- 
Travelling  Companions — Henry  Halworth — St.  Valentine's  Day — 
Gordon — The  Painter's  Account  of  Himself. 

"  The  tales  that  follow  the  Life  of  Wilmot  Warwick  are  fourteen  in  number, 
and  are  all  very  well  told.  We  have  been  particularly  pleased  with  the  intro- 
ductory one,  which  makes  known  the  writer,  and  some  of  the  most  picturesque, 
if  we  may  use  the  term,  personages  that  exhibit  in  the  little  volume.  It  is  en- 
titled the  *  Odd  Gentleman  ;'  but  though  we  recommend  the  perusal  of  the 
whole  book  to  our  readers,  yet  we  cannot  deny  ourselves  the  pleasure  of  per- 
sonally introducing  to  their  notice  our  facetious  friend.  *  *  *  Each  tale  is  good 
in  itself-,  but  were  we  to  express  a  preference,  it  would  be  in  favour  of '  Christ- 
mas Night,'  '  Henry  Halworth,'  and  *  The  Painter's  Account  or  Him- 
SE!  F.'  Let,  howevtr,  every  one  read  and  decide  for  himself.  Of  this  we  are 
quite  sure,  that  whoever  does  peruse  this  little  work  will  rise  refreshed  from  it, 
and  will  esteem  the  tone  of  tender,  generous,  and  manly  feeling, that  pervades 
the  whole  of  it."*  *  ♦ — New  Monthly  Magazine/or  December. 


\ 


M 


Valuables    Works  now  Publishing  by  J.   Ridgway. 


**  *  ♦  ♦  In  fact  it  is  a  novel,  and  a  novel  of  a  very  sHperior  order.  It  consists 
of  a  series  of  tales,  picked  up  amonsr,  and  written  from  jjjcidents  during  an  ex- 
cursion into  the  country.  *  •  •  His  talcs  are  cleverly  written,  arc  aptly  chosen, 
and  possess  many  gems  of  sentiment.  The  '  Haunted  Mill,'  and  the  *  Smug- 
gler,' are  of  a  very  powerful  description,  particularly  the  latter.  The  *  Wig' 
is  the  most  lengthy  ;  and  for  a  portraiture  of  its  own  peculiar  feelings,  is  one  of 
the  most  accurate  delineations  we  ever  perused."*  *  ♦ — Gentteman''s  Magazine 
for  December. 

A  Second  Volume  ofthe  REMAINS  of  WILMOT  WARWICK  is 

preparing   for  the  Press,  and  will  be   published   as   speedily   as 

possible. 

With  a  Map  and  Vignette,  price  3s. 

A  GEOGRAPHICAL  and  HISTORICAL  ACCOUNT  ofthe 
GKEAT  WORLD  :  with  a  Voyage  to  its  several  Islands,  and  a 
Vocabulary  of  the  Language. 

"  Ce<t  moi  qui  ai  introduit  dans  le  monde  le  luxe,  la  debauche,  les  jeux  de 
hazard.  Je  suis  Tinventeur  de  la  danse,  de  la  musique,  de  la  com^die,  et  de 
toutes  les  modes  nouvelles  de  France." 

A  HISTORY  of  the  PENAL  LAWS  against  the  IRISH  CA- 
THOLICS, from  the  Year  16S9  to  the  Union.  I3y  Sir  Henry 
Parnell,  Bart.  M.  P.     Fifth  Edition,  8vo.  3^.  6^.  boards. 

PAPER  MONEY,  BANKING,  AND  OVERTRADING;  in- 
cluding those  parts  of  the  Evidence  taken  before  the  Committee  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  which  explain  the  Scotch  System  of  Bank- 
ing. By  Sir  Henrv  Parnell,  Bart.  M.  P.  Second  Edition. 
8vo.  55.  6d, 

THE  SCOTCH  BANKER.     8vo.  5*.  6d. 

Contents:  Lord  Goderich,  and  the  Country  Bankers.  The  Prices  of  Wheat, 
and  the  Metallic  Currency.  Things  as  they  are.  A  few  facts.  Things  as  they 
might  have  been.  Famine.  Scotch  and  English  Bankers.  Anticipation  of  the 
late  Panic.     Anticipation  ofthe  New  Bank  Restriction  Act. 

VIEWS  ON  THE  CURRENCY  ;  in  which  the  nature  of  our 

System   of  Currency  is   cxplainod  ;   the  Merits  of  the  Corn  Bill, 

Branch  Banks,  Extension  of  the  Bank  Charter,  and  the  Small  Note 

Act,  are  examined.     By  T.  Joplin.     8vo.    5s.  C</. 

A  DISCOUSE  on  the  POOR  LAWS  of  ENGLAND  and  SCOT- 
LAND, on  the  POOR  of  IRELAND,  and  on  EMIGRATION. 
By  G.  Strickland.  Esq.  3^.  6c/. 

Contents. — Introduction.  Importance  of  the  Subject.  Evidence.  Plans  for 
the  Repeal  ofthe  Poor  Laws  of  Cni^land.  Origin  of  the  Poor  Laws.  Causes  of 
their  present  State.  Forty-third  of  Elizabeth,  Chap.  1  ;  Vagrancy.  Effects  of 
the  Poor  Laws  in  England.  Delays  in  improvinj^  them.  Bill  brought  into 
Parliament  in  June  1827.  Marriage  of  Paupers.  Poor  Laws  of  Scotland.  Irish 
LabourtTS.  Emigi*ation.  Poor  of  Ireland.  Amount  of  Poor  Rates  in  England 
and  Wales.  Appeals.  Poor  Rates  in  the  Northern  Counties.  General  View  of 
the  Poor  Laws.     Conclusion. 

THE  SUBALTERN'S  LOG-BOOK,  includincr  ANECDOTES 
of  well-known  MILITARY  CHARACTERS;  Incidents  on  Voyagt>s 
to  and  from  India,  with  a  Narrative  of  Occurrences  whilst  resident 
iu  that  Country.     2  voU,  post  Svo.     20^. 

Gunnefi  and  Shearman,  Safisdurt/  Square. 


